Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah, although I have no reason to believe the Alouettes and their fans are happy at McGill, it's also very clear that they are "guests" there and it's still first and foremost McGill's stadium. Not the Alouettes.

I presume you mean no reason to believe they aren't happy?

I don't get what difference it makes who runs the venue. When I see Als games on TV, all I see is great football atmosphere, Als banners and logos, etc. The only sign of McGill you see other than the campus buildings is the McGill logo at centre field.

Not to be flippant, but so what? What would change if Bob Wetenhall bought the stadium and ran it himself? The various upgrades and expansion were all done by and for the Alouettes. The place was a complete shambles in the 90s before the Als moved in. I still have a photo I took back around 1997 or so of the tree growing through the north side stands.

It's the same thing you get from the "NO ARGOS AT BMO" crowd who still cling desperately to the whole "b-b-b-but it will still be our house!". No Argo fans will give a crap or even notice that the seats are red any more than Lions fans used to care that their seats were blue or Winnipeg Jets fans care that their seats are green... they simply won't care who actually owns the place.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Chorduroy

Isn't that comparing?

Anyway - I had a nice long tour of new Mosaic on Saturday - checked out the view from the upper deck, stood on what will be the southeast patio, and stood where midfield will be (although they still need to dig down a bit). Very impressive stadium from all vantage points. It doesn't necessarily look all that big from the outside, but when you're inside, it feels HUGE. Having said that, it still feels intimate - the views from the upper deck are far better than you would expect.

Also very impressed by the concessions/washrooms area that I saw under the east side upper deck stands. Dare I say it will be the end of lineups? The concourses are very generous as well.

Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to post pics. But take my word for it - this is going to be an impressive place when it's done.

I'm envious.
I was there yesterday as well, looking from the outside. It will be fantastic for sure!

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by esquire

Incidentally, I watched the Bombers/Als debacle and I have to say that on a sunny warm day, Molson Stadium looks like the most pleasant place possible to watch a football game, even if you're sitting on a bench instead of an actual seat. Is there any reason why the Impact didn't opt to play there instead of building a stadium of their own that is pretty much the same size, but a lot less charming and in a more out of the way location?

Like it was said earlier there is the whole natural grass vs turf argument. Soccer is a sport mainly played on grass and playing on turf especially on a sunny day isn't ideal.

Saputo is also much more comfortable/modern than Molson. Also by being a soccer specific stadium, the seats are much closer to the field than could possibly be at Molson.

The location at the Olympic park suits the Montreal Impact just fine as well because it allows them to have different activities pre game at the field turf right next to Saputo stadium.

It's really a great atmosphere.

from twitter

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

Like it was said earlier there is the whole natural grass vs turf argument. Soccer is a sport mainly played on grass and playing on turf especially on a sunny day isn't ideal.

Saputo is also much more comfortable/modern than Molson. Also by being a soccer specific stadium, the seats are much closer to the field than could possibly be at Molson.

The location at the Olympic park suits the Montreal Impact just fine as well because it allows them to have different activities pre game at the field turf right next to Saputo stadium.

It's really a great atmosphere.

from twitter

I know it's not really relevant, but even with Saputo added to the mix, Montreal doesn't exactly have a plethora of oversized stadiums for a metro of 4 million people. I mean, there isn't even anywhere suitable for the city to host an outdoor NHL game.

And this relative dearth of stadiums is also true of most Canadian cities relative to much of the world. Most large or largish cities in the world have several stadiums of varying sizes. Most of our cities don't.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know it's not really relevant, but even with Saputo added to the mix, Montreal doesn't exactly have a plethora of oversized stadiums for a metro of 4 million people. I mean, there isn't even anywhere suitable for the city to host an outdoor NHL game.

And this relative dearth of stadiums is also true of most Canadian cities relative to much of the world. Most large or largish cities in the world have several stadiums of varying sizes. Most of our cities don't.

The only Canadian city that is well equipped when it comes to stadiums is Edmonton. Large world class soccer/football/athletics stadium, good AAA-calibre baseball stadium, good amateur soccer stadium, good amateur football stadium.

Every other city is lacking in some way.

[craner]

Originally Posted by JHikka

18,259 and 14,942 at the Remparts first two homes games at Centre Videotron. They have two more homes games this week (24th and 27th) so we'll see how far down the average attendance will drop as we get into the doldrums of the season attendance-wise (September/October are always the weakest months). At the old Colisee the Remparts average attendance for the season was as follows:

2014-2015: 9,698
2013-2014: 9,974
2012-2013: 11,345
2011-2012: 11,724
2010-2011: 11,680

The other two teams who play in similarly-sized NHL arenas, Calgary and Edmonton, draw on average between 6,000 and 9,000 per season, for comparison's sake.

Yes, the Calgary Hitmen have averaged attendance figures in the 8000 - 9500 range over the last 10 years.
(according to hockeydb.com)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

The only Canadian city that is well equipped when it comes to stadiums is Edmonton. Large world class soccer/football/athletics stadium, good AAA-calibre baseball stadium, good amateur soccer stadium, good amateur football stadium.

Every other city is lacking in some way.

For example, Canada's capital city with a metro population of over 1 million people was basically without a stadium for 7-8 years while they dilly-dallied over what to do with Lansdowne. The only stadium in town was a 10,000 seat baseball stadium that can't be used for any other sport.

Even with the new TD Place stadium, Ottawa is still under-equipped compared to most cities in the world of its size. And especially capital cities.

Or look at the Argos - when Rogers Centre is unavailable, there apparently isn't a single alternative place in the entire GTA that can host 20-25,000 people for a CFL game...? A metro of 6 million people.

[Medicine Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know it's not really relevant, but even with Saputo added to the mix, Montreal doesn't exactly have a plethora of oversized stadiums for a metro of 4 million people. I mean, there isn't even anywhere suitable for the city to host an outdoor NHL game.

And this relative dearth of stadiums is also true of most Canadian cities relative to much of the world. Most large or largish cities in the world have several stadiums of varying sizes. Most of our cities don't.

Because we have no need of them. Our sporting landscape does not demand it. Cities in the US, Europe, Latin America, etc have these stadiums because they have regular big-draw tenants for them that play Soccer, gridiron Football, baseball, Rugby, Cricket, whatever.

To put it in context, what Canada DOES have, are arenas. World-class ones. And plenty of them. We host events and sports, mostly hockey of course, that demand top-notch indoor arenas, and very very few countries globally can challenge us in that respect on a per capita basis.

It's all just reflective of our needs.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Or look at the Argos - when Rogers Centre is unavailable, there apparently isn't a single alternative place in the entire GTA that can host 20-25,000 people for a CFL game...? A metro of 6 million people.

It's pathetic. By contrast, if something happened to NRG Stadium in Houston, the Texans could play in either Rice Stadium, TDECU Stadium, with a bit of work the Astrodome, or in a real pinch BBVA Compass Stadium.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Medicine Mad Hatter

Because we have no need of them. Our sporting landscape does not demand it. Cities in the US, Europe, Latin America, etc have these stadiums because they have regular big-draw tenants for them that play Soccer, gridiron Football, baseball, Rugby, Cricket, whatever.

To put it in context, what Canada DOES have, are arenas. World-class ones. And plenty of them. We host events and sports, mostly hockey of course, that demand top-notch indoor arenas, and very very few countries globally can challenge us in that respect on a per capita basis.

It's all just reflective of our needs.

I am not really impressed by our arenas BTW. We're about equivalent to what you see in the U.S. and in most western European countries. And they all have tons of outdoor stadiums as well and indoor arena sports aren't even close to being their main sports like it's the case here.

Most German and U.S. cities of 500,000 people or more will have an arena more or less equivalent to the MTS Centre in Winnipeg.

[king10]

Originally Posted by esquire

It's pathetic. By contrast, if something happened to NRG Stadium in Houston, the Texans could play in either Rice Stadium, TDECU Stadium, with a bit of work the Astrodome, or in a real pinch BBVA Compass Stadium.

Id rather have our social services, health care, quality of life for the middle class than a bunch of massive stadiums like they do in Houston.

Big shiny stadiums are nice. Not needed though.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not really impressed by our arenas BTW. We're about equivalent to what you see in the U.S. and in most western European countries. And they all have tons of outdoor stadiums as well and indoor arena sports aren't even close to being their main sports like it's the case here.

Most German and U.S. cities of 500,000 people or more will have an arena more or less equivalent to the MTS Centre in Winnipeg.

Source?

Germany only has ONE indoor arena with the capacity equivalent to the MTS Centre.

The others are smaller capacity or built 40 to 50 years ago.

And Germany has over double the population of Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indoor_arenas_in_Germany

[Berklon]

Yea, I don't understand what makes Canada's arenas "world class". There's nothing wrong with them... but we only have a few that are up to (or close to) the latest standards - but they don't seem to be anything above and beyond other arenas in the world.

[Migs]

The mid span of the roof truss has started at Regina's stadium.



Credit RRI

[Medicine Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not really impressed by our arenas BTW. We're about equivalent to what you see in the U.S. and in most western European countries. And they all have tons of outdoor stadiums as well and indoor arena sports aren't even close to being their main sports like it's the case here.

Most German and U.S. cities of 500,000 people or more will have an arena more or less equivalent to the MTS Centre in Winnipeg.

Not really. Maybe equivalent to the SaskTel Centre, or even older/smaller. Arenas that could support modern NHL or NBA level economics are pretty sparse in Europe. More so than you might think. Seating capacity alone is one thing, but also factoring in broadcast infrastructure and luxury boxes, North America is completely unchallenged in that regard. But you can't really compare Canada to the US, heck you can't compare any country to the US, they really are in their own league of sporting culture.

I agree that Canada's outdoor stadium footprint is, or at least was, severely handicapped. We definitely needed a massive facelift. And we're getting it. New stadiums are now dotted around; Hamilton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina on the way. The CFL badly needed a stadium renaissance and it's coming along nicely. Alberta could use some lipstick, but it's fine for now. In time. The new stadiums are more comfortable, modern, and appropriately sized. I think this is key, you need good quality stadiums that suit the needs of the city and tenants. Does Canada need a goliath 80,000 seat National Stadium of some descript? Yeah, maybe just one, likely in Toronto. It allows Canada to play host to certain grandiose events. Anything more really is overkill, those stadiums would be a blight on our landscape and sit unused as an eye sore. The CFL doesn't need them, the MLS doesn't need them. The MLS has contributed to Canada with two great soccer-specific modern stadiums.

BC Place reflects its market very well, its very attractive and about the right size for Vancouver. When that place is full, its really rockin, its world class and doesnt need to seat 80,000 to be so. Montreal is the one city still that I see as being a bit of a mess. The Big O needs to be replaced, a city of Montreal's size and event culture should have something of at least BC Place's capabilities, but securing a regular tenant is tricky. The Alouettes and Impact already have stadiums. And neither would be appropriate in a massive cavernous stadium other than for playoffs/special events. If Montreal ever gets back the Expos, a baseball specific stadium would almost certainly be built. It's a tough situation.

But really all in all, Canada is making progress. We will never have the NFL-BPL type stadium footprint here, it just doesnt make sense. What would they be used for? How would they pay for themselves? CFL-specific stadiums are more than enough to service our mid sized cities. We really only have 3 international cities, and those 3 should sport the bigger, glitzier stadiums for when needed.

[Medicine Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by Berklon

Yea, I don't understand what makes Canada's arenas "world class". There's nothing wrong with them... but we only have a few that are up to (or close to) the latest standards - but they don't seem to be anything above and beyond other arenas in the world.

I think people really just take them for granted here because we have them.

We had plenty of big new arenas built in the 90s and onward that can host really any event to a high standard. Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec city and Ottawa all have pretty outstanding large arenas. And Edmonton is on the way. We have other large arenas in Calgary, Saskatoon, Hamilton, secondary ones in Vancouver, Edmonton, Quebec and Ottawa, etc, that can also host large events but just not with the same standards. There are top notch mid-sized arenas all over as well, just look at some of the facilities in the CHL. Relative to a country of our size, that is really impressive.

[king10]

Agreed^^^

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Medicine Mad Hatter

Not really. Maybe equivalent to the SaskTel Centre, or even older/smaller. Arenas that could support modern NHL or NBA level economics are pretty sparse in Europe. More so than you might think. Seating capacity alone is one thing, but also factoring in broadcast infrastructure and luxury boxes, North America is completely unchallenged in that regard. But you can't really compare Canada to the US, heck you can't compare any country to the US, they really are in their own league of sporting culture.

I agree that Canada's outdoor stadium footprint is, or at least was, severely handicapped. We definitely needed a massive facelift. And we're getting it. New stadiums are now dotted around; Hamilton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina on the way. The CFL badly needed a stadium renaissance and it's coming along nicely. Alberta could use some lipstick, but it's fine for now. In time. The new stadiums are more comfortable, modern, and appropriately sized. I think this is key, you need good quality stadiums that suit the needs of the city and tenants. Does Canada need a goliath 80,000 seat National Stadium of some descript? Yeah, maybe just one, likely in Toronto. It allows Canada to play host to certain grandiose events. Anything more really is overkill, those stadiums would be a blight on our landscape and sit unused as an eye sore. The CFL doesn't need them, the MLS doesn't need them. The MLS has contributed to Canada with two great soccer-specific modern stadiums.

BC Place reflects its market very well, its very attractive and about the right size for Vancouver. When that place is full, its really rockin, its world class and doesnt need to seat 80,000 to be so. Montreal is the one city still that I see as being a bit of a mess. The Big O needs to be replaced, a city of Montreal's size and event culture should have something of at least BC Place's capabilities, but securing a regular tenant is tricky. The Alouettes and Impact already have stadiums. And neither would be appropriate in a massive cavernous stadium other than for playoffs/special events. If Montreal ever gets back the Expos, a baseball specific stadium would almost certainly be built. It's a tough situation.

But really all in all, Canada is making progress. We will never have the NFL-BPL type stadium footprint here, it just doesnt make sense. What would they be used for? How would they pay for themselves? CFL-specific stadiums are more than enough to service our mid sized cities. We really only have 3 international cities, and those 3 should sport the bigger, glitzier stadiums for when needed.

In fairness, I really think one of the reasons for the limited stadium development is that we don't have that strong a spectator sports culture. As has been stated: it would be great to have a bunch of nice new stadiums, but what would we use them for?

Even if our complement of hockey arenas is good (as has been argued), fan attendance for hockey in Canada isn't as big as one might expect for a country supposedly as mad as it is about the sport. If we're really that big on hockey, you'd think average CHL attendance would be in the 10,000 range instead of the 4,000 that it's stuck at.

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by king10

Id rather have our social services, health care, quality of life for the middle class than a bunch of massive stadiums like they do in Houston.

Big shiny stadiums are nice. Not needed though.

LOL, I love comments like these... as if Houston is some sort of third World Country.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In fairness, I really think one of the reasons for the limited stadium development is that we don't have that strong a spectator sports culture. As has been stated: it would be great to have a bunch of nice new stadiums, but what would we use them for?

Even if our complement of hockey arenas is good (as has been argued), fan attendance for hockey in Canada isn't as big as one might expect for a country supposedly as mad as it is about the sport. If we're really that big on hockey, you'd think average CHL attendance would be in the 10,000 range instead of the 4,000 that it's stuck at.

Well, when the supposed hotbed of hockey doesn't even have it's own domestic professional league... At this point, we're basically lucky the US still largely doesn't care about hockey. If they did, we'd likely be down to 2-3 teams at this point.

We've become trained over the years that we should only want to watch the best, i.e. highest paid athletes. This by default will be an American league. And with TV production/quality becoming better and better, it's becoming a steeper trend, which even US leagues are starting to have to deal. Though for them, TV rights are the big money-maker, so it's not all bad news.