Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[GernB]

Originally Posted by Migs

The configuration is different, ie the circular footprint with far more sq/ft, the oval upper deck, upper deck endzone seats, tiered party decks, translucent roof, elevated lower bowl corner seating, 3 levels of party decks in each southern corner, covered endzone seating, 2 separate levels of suites, etc. Like I said, IMO there is very little that is similar.

Also the canopy at IGF is suspended from arches while that at NMS is cantilevered. There really is little apparent similarity IMO. Both are fine venues, but are quite different, even on a cursory examination.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Migs

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. There are folks who'd prefer a 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe over an 2016 Audi Q5. To each their own.

I see where you're going with your analogy, although I think the examples you chose to illustrate it are off the mark.

A better analogy is that IGF and NMS are different trim levels of the same car. One is a Nissan Maxima SL, the other is a Nissan Maxima SR. I will leave it to you to determine which is which.

Anyway, the similarities between the two facilities are plainly obvious. They aren't out and out copies of each other (the canopies, while similar in overall form and function are a bit too different to suggest that), but the seating configuration, capacity and general layout are as similar as any two stadiums in pro football.

[SaskScraper]

^^^WOW!!..
^^and just wow..
Name calling.. comparisons of two stadiums (even with one of them not even finished yet), Winnipegers seem put off & really pi$$ed about something, what did I miss?
.
.
.
never mind, it's making more sense now
thanks for the update Migs

Originally Posted by Migs

Had the great opportunity to view the Mosaic Stadium Presentation Center today, wow what a great experience. Very very impressed with the materials being used on the stadium. They had lots of multimedia presentations as well as new renderings of the club box seats area as well as the Virtual Venue 3D interaction, looks even better than I thought it would. They also had a scaled down model of the stadium, Loge & club box seating examples, PTGE roof fabric, large LED Ephesus bulb (there will be 400 for stadium) & many other displays. I highly recommend all season ticket holders to come & check it out. I believe they said it will be open to the general public on certain dates.

Exciting times.

I hope someday both provinces can come to terms with each respective stadium and enjoy the banjo bowls with even more vigour

just as a reminder (2015 CFL Regular Season TV Ratings High: 1.12 million (WPG @ SSK, Sep 6))
not bad for two provinces with a combined population of 2.5 million people
cheers guys!

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Your point is taken, though. No incentive for a franchise to make a better product if the worst product still sells out.

The incentive is called the playoffs. More TV viewers, more merchandise sold, more profits. The deeper the run, the more money you make. Business people don't just decide that X number of dollars is enough. If they can make more they will.

If the Leafs were at the salary floor and weren't hiring the highest priced executives in the business then I could see the "they don't care" argument. But they're spending big money on players, coaches, and management and have been for years. The argument that they don't care just doesn't hold up.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

^^^WOW!!..
^^and just wow..
Name calling.. comparisons of two stadiums (even with one of them not even finished yet), Winnipegers seem put off & really pi$$ed about something, what did I miss?
.
.
.
never mind, it's making more sense now
thanks for the update Migs


I hope someday both provinces can come to terms with each respective stadium and enjoy the banjo bowls with even more vigour

just as a reminder (2015 CFL Regular Season TV Ratings High: 1.12 million (WPG @ SSK, Sep 6))
not bad for two provinces with a combined population of 2.5 million people
cheers guys!

Naw, more like Saskacheweenies having a bit of a superiority complex about their stadium and other matters when they really don't have any reason for it.

[GernB]

^^From what I've seen....either one would be a great addition to Calgary.....
I wish to hell the Stamps/City could get their respective acts together and get something like one of these built. Would make the game day experience vastly better. Though I must admit we don't go to many games anymore...which is at least partly due to that decrepit old yard in use now.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by esquire

I see where you're going with your analogy, although I think the examples you chose to illustrate it are off the mark.

A better analogy is that IGF and NMS are different trim levels of the same car. One is a Nissan Maxima SL, the other is a Nissan Maxima SR. I will leave it to you to determine which is which.

Anyway, the similarities between the two facilities are plainly obvious. They aren't out and out copies of each other (the canopies, while similar in overall form and function are a bit too different to suggest that), but the seating configuration, capacity and general layout are as similar as any two stadiums in pro football.

The only thing that is plainly obvious is that you do not understand the basic fundamentals of stadium architecture. The only similarity is the capacity.

Lower bowl. New Mosaic has tiered party decks in the south endzone & raised seating in the corners to improve customers point of view. IGF lower bowl has nothing unique.

Upper bowl. New Mosaic's upper bowl sideline seating is oval shaped at the top. There is also an upper bowl in the north end zone as well as 2 additional upper decks in the NW & NE corners. IGF upper bowl has nothing unique.

Spectator roof. New Mosaic roof is translucent which greatly decreases shadows on the field & also is specifically designed to mitigate wind. IGF roof is unique looking but the shadows on the field are unfortunate & as far as I can tell does little to mitigate the wind, given that it is wideopen where it meets the exterior sidewall.

party balconies. Mosaic has 9 while IGF has zero.

Footprint. Mosaic is circular with far more square footage, IGF is oval shaped.

IGF is a great looking stadium but IMO they are apples & oranges.

Thanks Stormer for the images.

[esquire]

^ I didn't say that they were 100% identical. I'm just saying that with the exception of the one big difference - the endzone seating arrangement - IGF and NMS look extremely similar. Which anyone who hadn't made their minds up about the issue before they ever saw a rendering of NMS would readily recognize.

I guess with all the hype about NMS I expected it to look very unique and distinct; like a Rogers Place of the CFL. It has some distinctive touches for sure, but on the whole it's still very close to IGF in many respects.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Cool, time for the fighting to big. Saskabush? Hmmm, never heard that one, oh well, guess Winterpeg doesn't have much to brag about.

.

You've never heard Saskabush? Where are you from?

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Cool, time for the fighting to big. Saskabush? Hmmm, never heard that one, oh well, guess Winterpeg doesn't have much to brag about.

yeah you're right

[Oilkountry]

you guys are looking to far into this. IGF and mosiacs designs are alot more simular than say...TD place




THF




The general Idea of the 2 new prairie stadiums are very similar. Yes there is design differences you're right. but I don't think anyone was disagreeing with you. I feel like you guys just took opportunities to flaunt what you thought was better about mosaic

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

you guys are looking to far into this. IGF and mosiacs designs are alot more simular than say

The general Idea of the 2 new prairie stadiums are very similar

If you think different lower bowl configuration, different upper bowl configuration, different shape of footprint, completely different spectator roof, & different amenities like party balconies & tiered party decks are the same then I guess there is no use discussing this.

Merry Christmas.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

The general Idea of the 2 new prairie stadiums are very similar. Yes there is design differences you're right. but I don't think anyone was disagreeing with you. I feel like you guys just took opportunities to flaunt what you thought was better about mosaic

I think the Rider fanbase was just sold so many lines about how they'd basically get a slightly reduced size version of something opulent like Cowboys Stadium that they refuse to acknowledge the painfully obvious. I'm not saying it isn't going to be a great new stadium and a vast improvement over what currently exists, but there are some serious delusions of grandeur going on here that need to be called out.

"B-b-b-but there are tiered party decks!"

Yeesh.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by esquire

I think the Rider fanbase was just sold so many lines about how they'd basically get a slightly reduced size version of something opulent like Cowboys Stadium that they refuse to acknowledge the painfully obvious. I'm not saying it isn't going to be a great new stadium and a vast improvement over what currently exists, but there are some serious delusions of grandeur going on here that need to be called out.

"B-b-b-but there are tiered party decks!"

Yeesh.

On one hand you have an architectural firm that designs condos & strip malls that designed a stadium (for the first time) with at least $20-30 million dollars worth of deficiencies & that is just in the first 2 years of operation.

On the other hand you have the architectural firm who has designed some of the newest & best NFL & European soccer stadiums.

Who gets the best bang for the buck & who gets the better design? I guess we shall see.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by esquire

I think the Rider fanbase was just sold so many lines about how they'd basically get a slightly reduced size version of something opulent like Cowboys Stadium that they refuse to acknowledge the painfully obvious. I'm not saying it isn't going to be a great new stadium and a vast improvement over what currently exists, but there are some serious delusions of grandeur going on here that need to be called out.

"B-b-b-but there are tiered party decks!"

Yeesh.

yeah i have to agree. IGF reminds me slightly of centurylink

Mosiac...nothing has really been built like it. But I don't think it's a shoe in for the premier CFL stadium I really think IGF and BC place hold a candle to it quite well

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

yeah i have to agree. IGF reminds me slightly of centurylink

Mosiac...nothing has really been built like it. But I don't think it's a shoe in for the premier CFL stadium I really think IGF and BC place hold a candle to it quite well

It's in the top rung for sure but there are things I prefer about IGF. If you could combine the best of both, then you'd have a real winner. Are you listening, Calgary?

Better at NMS:
-Apparently wider concourses
-Many patios and party decks
-Translucent canopy
-Angled corner seats
-Horseshoe seating configuration which maximizes capacity for concerts and special events with temporary seating

Better at IGF:
-Greater canopy coverage of seating
-More enclosed feeling with a bigger upper deck that wraps around the corners
-Two major jumbotrons
-Full bowl seating configuration which is great for fan atmosphere and TV appearance
-(I know not everyone will care about this one) Impressive height with arches that dominate the south Winnipeg skyline

Neither one is particularly amazing on the outside, but I suppose I'd give the nod to Regina's unapologetically contemporary appearance vs. the usual Winnipeg vaguely faux-retro (see also every Winnipeg sports facility built in the last 20 years).

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by esquire

It's in the top rung for sure but there are things I prefer about IGF. If you could combine the best of both, then you'd have a real winner. Are you listening, Calgary?

Better at NMS:
-Apparently wider concourses
-Many patios and party decks
-Translucent canopy
-Angled corner seats
-Horseshoe seating configuration which maximizes capacity for concerts and special events with temporary seating

Better at IGF:
-Greater canopy coverage of seating
-More enclosed feeling with a bigger upper deck that wraps around the corners
-Two major jumbotrons
-Full bowl seating configuration which is great for fan atmosphere and TV appearance
-(I know not everyone will care about this one) Impressive height with arches that dominate the south Winnipeg skyline

Neither one is particularly amazing on the outside, but I suppose I'd give the nod to Regina's unapologetically contemporary appearance vs. the usual Winnipeg vaguely faux-retro (see also every Winnipeg sports facility built in the last 20 years).

Hate to be a homer as I have been to IGF and love it but I would add the following advantages for Mosaic:

• LED lighting
• much bigger main Jumbotron (and yes there are 2 as well);
• parking and location
• deeper bowl
• much better wind deflection/mitigation design
• more lounges
• much better team facilities (Riders are spending close to $20 million extra above the cost to the stadium on leasehold improvements).

There are probably more like concessions.

[WhipperSnapper]

Architecturally, much lies on the roof, in which case, the rendered Mosaic is the clear winner.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Hate to be a homer as I have been to IGF and love it but I would add the following advantages for Mosaic:

• LED lighting
• much bigger main Jumbotron (and yes there are 2 as well);
• parking and location
• deeper bowl
• much better wind deflection/mitigation design
• more lounges
• much better team facilities (Riders are spending close to $20 million extra above the cost to the stadium on leasehold improvements).

There are probably more like concessions.

Interesting list. My comments:

-LED lighting is neither here nor there for me, basically a technological advancement that eventually all stadiums will have, although NMS gets bragging rights over being the first
-What is the size of the main jumbotron? Is it really that much bigger? The one on the stadium wall looks like it's a fair bit smaller than the endzone one.
-Parking and location... haha, yeah, you're probably right when it comes to that one... until the transitway is finished
-Deeper bowl doesn't mean much to me. IGF is built in a way that dramatically reduces the wind as a factor, and the stadium is still quite impressively tall.
-Wind deflection... we'll have to see that in action to make a call.
-More lounges... I don't know the exact numbers in both stadiums but you're probably right on that one, although IGF has several of its own throughout the stadium.
-Team facilities... again, we'll have to see that in action. It isn't clear to me what NMS has that IGF doesn't in that regard.

As for the canopy, NMS gets more design points. IGF is probably better from a functional standpoint, though... I don't think nearly as many fans will be covered at NMS.

[Coldrsx]

An inside look at Rogers Place.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/rogers-place-to-change-edmontons-landscape-forever/