Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[king10]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

Both posts were defending td place not sure what you're trying to get at? But to answer your question..It's a Great Stadium that suites the eastern CFL perfectly at a budget less than half of what other cities are paying. You cant tell me THF is twice as good as TD place just because the price tag was twice as much? It needs some more amenities yes. Is it the devil? God no Go pick on Calgary or Montreal



It's not crumbling. Get a grip. Pieces if the thin layer of concrete meant to blend the 2 slabs in the 70's is falling off. big deal theirs nothing structurally wrong with it. Put something to cover it and you wont even notice the tiny bit of weathering.

You guys are acting like this Stadium isn't acceptable and its kind of annoying

Remember the jewel of the CFL in 2010

man relax, its a forum, we're allowed to express our opinions without being personally attacked.

why are you taking our opinion so personally? who the hell said TD place was the devil? who said it isn't acceptable?

I said this....

Originally Posted by king10

I think all they had to do was spend some money on restoring the concrete facade. I still hold out hope that they will wrap the stands around at least one endzone when demand warrants it.

Not sure how that equates to TD Place being "the devil and not being an acceptable stadium" I said the concrete on the facade is crumbling, you said its falling off, different words, same thing yet your interpretation of the meaning is right and mine is wrong?

sheesh man

they spent $85 million on the stadium reno. it serves its purpose very well. no questions about that
all we're saying is it wouldve been nice if they could have given the concrete some TLC to freshen up its appearance. Thats all.

and why the heck would i pick on Calgary or MTL. Those stadiums are decades old and haven't seen a substantial renovation in decades. No doubt they're in worse shape than TD place. and for good reason.

[Richard Lipschitz]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

Both posts were defending td place not sure what you're trying to get at?

In one post you claim it has everything BC Place has. In the other you seem to be urging us to consider the price tag and forgive its shortcomings.

I'm beginning to think you've never actually stepped foot in the place. Have you?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Nathan

And the problem is that a lot of people would prefer to sit second tier sideline over endzone...

Using Rider games as an example. Sellouts are much more common now than in the past, but when there isn't a sellout, it isn't the second tier on the West side that is unsold... it is endzone seats.

Yeah, that's what the GM used to say as well as Esquire pointed out. Personally, I think the latest decision is the right one; if you're not going to sell out the lower bowl, then put as many people in there so that the energy is concentrated. My issue is that the endzone prices need to reflect that, to make up for the poorer sightlines, instead of going up. If they use the same tarps that the Whitecaps use, I think it could turn out pretty cool actually.


http://www.ecolepjpac.com/silent-auction-items.html

Originally Posted by thurmas

I still think renovating BC Place was a mistake. It's still far too big for the Lions and Whitecaps needs. I think it would have made more sense to spend the $565 million they did on the renovation instead on a new 30,000 seat CFL/MLS stadium on the site of UBC at Thunderbird stadium or somewhere else in the Metro Vancouver Lower Mainland area.

I can never agree with this viewpoint, even though it seems to be the predominant one. I don't believe in stadiums being too big. Filling up their stadium should be the goal for teams, not constricting capacity until it fits their existing fanbase. Having a big stadium should be viewed as an opportunity, not a nuissance. BC Place is an absolutely beautiful stadium, with a retractable roof and dare I say it, a world-class feel. Scrapping all it's become and instead putting up a smaller and uncovered stadium makes no sense to me. Not to mention that I absolutely can't stand open endzones like you proposed. I get that it's not where most people like to sit, but if we're trying to improve the atmosphere, a full bowl is a must. Its demand can be stimulated with lower ticket prices. I think you need to be surrounded by people from all sides to truly have that "full-stadium" perception. As far as the bowl goes, empty seats are better than air.

Besides, the effect of the empty seats on atmosphere are much too exaggerated. When the crowd wants to be loud, it can be, and I've seen it do so for big games even if almost the entire upper bowl is empty. Rogers Arena is always sold out, but its atmosphere is awful compared to the Lions. Stadium size is a red herring. Our atmosphere woes have much more to do with Vancouver being a bad sports town, but that's for another post. In general, being in a half-empty stadium really isn't that bad, and I'd much rather have that than sell-out a lesser stadium and restrict access to the games to potential fans.

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by king10

Thats because major US cities are ok with spending billions of dollars on convention centres and stadiums without maximizing the tax payer return.

Outdoor stadium is great, but those locations you mentioned aren't downtown and having it outdoors and open to the elements cuts back on a lot of revenue streams.

Any stadium would have had to have built on the SKytrain line, which eliminates UBC and a lot of other sites and its too far for most people. Lions fans are in Surrey, Coquitlam etc. and that would be over an hour drive for most. Downtown is where most teams want to be, close to Corporate clients, lots or bars and restaurants. The Whitecaps tried to build the waterfront stadium with their OWN money and it was shot down by the NIMBYs and city council.
BC Place was the best option and still is.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by king10

man relax, its a forum, we're allowed to express our opinions without being personally attacked.

why are you taking our opinion so personally? who the hell said TD place was the devil? who said it isn't acceptable?

I said this....



Not sure how that equates to TD Place being "the devil and not being an acceptable stadium" I said the concrete on the facade is crumbling, you said its falling off, different words, same thing yet your interpretation of the meaning is right and mine is wrong?

sheesh man

they spent $85 million on the stadium reno. it serves its purpose very well. no questions about that
all we're saying is it wouldve been nice if they could have given the concrete some TLC to freshen up its appearance. Thats all.

and why the heck would i pick on Calgary or MTL. Those stadiums are decades old and haven't seen a substantial renovation in decades. No doubt they're in worse shape than TD place. and for good reason.

The north side of td place is over 40 years so I'm not sure how it differs from Calgary's situation or Montreal.. And old Molson hasn't seen substantial reno's in decades, come on dude?

And I'm not just talking to you their is so many Anti TD place advocates on this forum it's not even funny. Crumbling and Flakes falling off are 2 different things let's be real here. And It does have everything BC place has! I'm just saying if you guys are gonna start pointing out every flaw it has your basically splitting hairs. In the end it's an 85M reno they Aren't going to be able to address every blemish the stadium has and why the heck would they? Doesn't make it any less of a Stadium.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

the north side of td place is over 40 years. and old Molson hasn't seen substantial reno's in decades?

lol thanks for avoiding all the other relevant stuff in my post.

1. molson wasn't substantially reno'd like TD place. (29 million vs 85 million)

1a) the discussion is about TD place not Molson. (TD place is vastly superior to Molson, but Molson wasn't the topic of discussion, the untreated concrete at TD Place was, not sure why you're trying to force us to point out how bad molson is)

2. North side of TD place received substantial renovations including new roof and resealing of the concrete under the newly installed seats as well as removal of the old press box)

My point stands. It would have been nice if the cosmetic concrete at TD place was given some TLC and its appearance physically improved.

Thats all. no "td place is the devil" no "td place isn't good enough" Its a fine venue.

[Oilkountry]

Again with BC place, I don't see how anyone can look at a picture of that place and say it was the wrong decision. I remember walking up to the building and thinking how spectacular it looked. No picture can do those big steel roof supports justice. It's massive and nothing short of absolutely stunning.

[tomthumb2]

I'm interested in seeing the Alouette's attendance this year. Seems like interest is trending down -and not sure if its because the team is shitty or if the stadium is. It definitely doesn't have that Wrigley Field type cache that they used to talk about. Have never been in it so can't comment. Maybe someone else could shine some light on that? It sure looks pretty cramped and tiny on TV.

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

Again with BC place, I don't see how anyone can look at a picture of that place and say it was the wrong decision. I remember walking up to the building and thinking how spectacular it looked. No picture can do those big steel roof supports justice. It's massive and nothing short of absolutely stunning.

Couldn't agree more! Its too big for the Lions but that's on them, not the stadiums.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by king10

lol thanks for avoiding all the other relevant stuff in my post.

1. molson wasn't substantially reno'd like TD place. (29 million vs 85 million)

1a) the discussion is about TD place not Molson. (TD place is vastly superior to Molson, but Molson wasn't the topic of discussion, the untreated concrete at TD Place was, not sure why you're trying to force us to point out how bad molson is)

2. North side of TD place received substantial renovations including new roof and resealing of the concrete under the newly installed seats as well as removal of the old press box)

My point stands. It would have been nice if the cosmetic concrete at TD place was given some TLC and its appearance physically improved.

Thats all. no "td place is the devil" no "td place isn't good enough" Its a fine venue.

I'm pretty sure 80% of that 85M went to building an entirely new structure on the south side. So the molson vs north side comparison is pretty accurate. And I didn't dodge any points you made because you made none worth replying to. Further more I'm not pushing Molson's downfalls on anyone. I'm just saying if you want to complain about CFL stadia Their is 2 options far more worthy of the conversation.

And again.. I'm generalizing to the last 2 years of TD place getting trashed by a few members on this thread Not just you big fella take a breathe.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

I'm interested in seeing the Alouette's attendance this year. Seems like interest is trending down -and not sure if its because the team is shitty or if the stadium is. It definitely doesn't have that Wrigley Field type cache that they used to talk about. Have never been in it so can't comment. Maybe someone else could shine some light on that? It sure looks pretty cramped and tiny on TV.

AC...That's all I have to say

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

Couldn't agree more! Its too big for the Lions but that's on them, not the stadiums.

Absolutely and to add to that, BC place isn't in the same kind of "too big" CWS and The big O are. Even though it's around the same capacity to me BC place feels way more intimate even half empty.

[Migs]

First view of some of the exterior finishings of the Regina stadium. This is the same limestone variety used on the Legislative building, the Hotel Sask, UosS buildings, & many other significant buildings around the province. Looks great already!

[HomerSPC]

Originally Posted by Migs

First view of some of the exterior finishings of the Regina stadium. This is the same limestone variety used on the Legislative building, the Hotel Sask, UosS buildings, & many other significant buildings around the province. Looks great already!

Looks so great.

[Richard Lipschitz]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

And I'm not just talking to you their is so many Anti TD place advocates on this forum it's not even funny

I prefer to call them realists. People who call a spade a spade. If you live in Ottawa, you'll know that the City spent a couple of years hyping this as a first rate world class stadium project. People were so desperate that they took the bait. What we ended up with is second rate at best. It's a damn shame is what it is.

And btw is this thing on? Why haven't I been banned yet?

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Richard Lipschitz

And btw is this thing on? Why haven't I been banned yet?

Because you haven't posted anything that deserves a banning.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Originally Posted by Richard Lipschitz

I prefer to call them realists. People who call a spade a spade. If you live in Ottawa, you'll know that the City spent a couple of years hyping this as a first rate world class stadium project. People were so desperate that they took the bait. What we ended up with is second rate at best. It's a damn shame is what it is.

And btw is this thing on? Why haven't I been banned yet?

Why would you be getting banned??

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I can never agree with this viewpoint, even though it seems to be the predominant one. I don't believe in stadiums being too big. Filling up their stadium should be the goal for teams, not constricting capacity until it fits their existing fanbase. Having a big stadium should be viewed as an opportunity, not a nuissance. BC Place is an absolutely beautiful stadium, with a retractable roof and dare I say it, a world-class feel. Scrapping all it's become and instead putting up a smaller and uncovered stadium makes no sense to me. Not to mention that I absolutely can't stand open endzones like you proposed. I get that it's not where most people like to sit, but if we're trying to improve the atmosphere, a full bowl is a must. Its demand can be stimulated with lower ticket prices. I think you need to be surrounded by people from all sides to truly have that "full-stadium" perception. As far as the bowl goes, empty seats are better than air.

Besides, the effect of the empty seats on atmosphere are much too exaggerated. When the crowd wants to be loud, it can be, and I've seen it do so for big games even if almost the entire upper bowl is empty. Rogers Arena is always sold out, but its atmosphere is awful compared to the Lions. Stadium size is a red herring. Our atmosphere woes have much more to do with Vancouver being a bad sports town, but that's for another post. In general, being in a half-empty stadium really isn't that bad, and I'd much rather have that than sell-out a lesser stadium and restrict access to the games to potential fans.

Well said, I couldn't agree more. We have a tendency here in Canada to bash all the big stadiums and wanting to replace them by other smaller venues.

Like you said, a big stadium will always provide the opportunity for bigger profits.

And it's kind of pathetic that a country of 35M people have 4 stadiums capable of hosting 50,000+ people. Canadians need to change their mentality.

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

I'm interested in seeing the Alouette's attendance this year. Seems like interest is trending down -and not sure if its because the team is shitty or if the stadium is. It definitely doesn't have that Wrigley Field type cache that they used to talk about. Have never been in it so can't comment. Maybe someone else could shine some light on that? It sure looks pretty cramped and tiny on TV.

A big reason of the decline in attendance is AC's retirement. When you're used to watching elite QBing, it's almost unwatchable with Crompton. However, Percival Molson is not an ideal football stadium.

The Als need to play at the big O. Make the announcement and give 1 year to the government and RIO to fix the roof. Olympic Stadium is a great football stadium (much better than Molson for example who has cut corners in the endzones). Of course Pecival Molson has the great view over downtown but that's it.

And at least the big O has "seats".

It worked before. In the 1977 season, the Als averaged 59,595 fans per game (a CFL record that still stands today) in the brand new open air Olympic Stadium.

I wouldn't expect 60K every game but there would be bigger crowds at the big O than at Percival Molson IMHO.

[craner]

Count me in the camp that thinks renovating BC Place was the right decision. It turned out spectacularly IMO an seems to suit a lot of needs. As others have mentioned, basically a new stadium in a great location for <$600 mil - not bad.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

A big reason of the decline in attendance is AC's retirement. When you're used to watching elite QBing, it's almost unwatchable with Crompton. However, Percival Molson is not an ideal football stadium.

The Als need to play at the big O. Make the announcement and give 1 year to the government and RIO to fix the roof. Olympic Stadium is a great football stadium (much better than Molson for example who has cut corners in the endzones). Of course Pecival Molson has the great view over downtown but that's it.

And at least the big O has "seats".

It worked before. In the 1977 season, the Als averaged 59,595 fans per game (a CFL record that still stands today) in the brand new open air Olympic Stadium.

I wouldn't expect 60K every game but there would be bigger crowds at the big O than at Percival Molson IMHO.

Yeah and the Argos should stay in RC. Give your head a shake. Molson saved the Als from the cancer the team had...the Big O.... it was/is/will be a terrible place to watch football. You're basing a hunch that it would work on 1 game when the Stadium was brand new and people were there to see the stadium itself and not the game at hand. Corner cut end zones can be fixed easily (commonwealth stadium) Make no mistake their would be no Als without molson. And if the Als could have worked at the big O they wouldn't have left it behind in the 90s