Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[king10]

I love lack of symmetry in stadiums.

Stadiums that are symmetrical look stale and cookie cutter to me. No character.

That's just an opinion though. Everyone has different tastes.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Chorduroy

This is Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara. I think it's ugly and hate the lack of symmetry. Just wanted to point that out.

Levis by Trent, on Flickr

It is hardly ever full either because much of the stands face the sunny side and leave fans baking in the Bay Area heat.

In the future they will talk about how it was a mistake to leave Candlestick.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by osmo

It is hardly ever full either because much of the stands face the sunny side and leave fans baking in the Bay Area heat.

In the future they will talk about how it was a mistake to leave Candlestick.

Everything I've heard about Levi's Stadium has been about the giant debacle surrounding the stadium's location. Apparently it's convenient to no one and getting there on game day is a huge hassle. I don't know if it's just the media piling on or if there are serious problems with the place, but suffice it to say that it has not met with glowing reviews.

As for the layout, I hate venues that put all the boxes on one side of the venue... Philips Arena in Atlanta has a similar arrangement. You end up with this giant atmosphere-killing wall on one side, and the other side is just massive to make up for the lack of seating where the boxes are.

This kind of thing might be great for maximizing revenue, but it's a fail by every other metric:

[Berklon]

I don't see anything wrong with the layout of that stadium. I think it looks great and has a great atmosphere for football. The location with regards to traffic may have been a mistake however. In any case, they had to leave Candlestick Park - it was old and was made for baseball and was very awkward for football.

With all the relocation stuff going on with the Raiders, Chargers and Rams - there's talk that one of the possible outcomes is the Raiders moving to Santa Clara to share the stadium with the Niners. This makes sense to me simply because an incredible amount of money was put into that stadium and it's severely underused - just look at their events calendar. An additional 10 games isn't a lot - but it's something... much wiser than spending another billion just to host 10 more games a year and the odd events here and there.

[GernB]

Originally Posted by esquire

Arrowhead is basically a super-sized version of Commonwealth. Both stadiums have been modified over the years in ways that have taken them in different directions (both have had concourse additions in different architectural styles, and Arrowhead added more press boxes and skyboxes at the top), but the original 1970s as built versions are remarkably similar.

If you were to remove the upper deck end zone seating from Arrowhead, you would basically be left with a very close parallel to Commonwealth.

Here's Arrowhead



The original version of Commonwealth... it even had the same colour seats as Arrowhead... red and orange



The exterior (excluding recent additions) is the same stripped down 1970s style of bare concrete.





Obviously the middle deck at Arrowhead is a big difference between the two, but other than that they are very similar. The differences are more in size (KC being the bigger of the two) than style.

Back when the Eskimos averaged 50,000+ per game (early 80s) there was talk of eventually extending the upper bowl around the northern end zone. But then attendance started dropping off rapidly and it never occurred.

[speedog]

Hah, you guys and your bickering - you could still have McMahon with nothing even concrete to replace it in the foreseeable future.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by king10

I love lack of symmetry in stadiums.

Stadiums that are symmetrical look stale and cookie cutter to me. No character.

Does that include arenas?


Philips Arena, Atlanta

The king of asymmetrical stadiums has to be La Bombonera, though...

[osmo]

Originally Posted by esquire

Everything I've heard about Levi's Stadium has been about the giant debacle surrounding the stadium's location. Apparently it's convenient to no one and getting there on game day is a huge hassle. I don't know if it's just the media piling on or if there are serious problems with the place, but suffice it to say that it has not met with glowing reviews.

As for the layout, I hate venues that put all the boxes on one side of the venue... Philips Arena in Atlanta has a similar arrangement. You end up with this giant atmosphere-killing wall on one side, and the other side is just massive to make up for the lack of seating where the boxes are.

This kind of thing might be great for maximizing revenue, but it's a fail by every other metric:

The boxes on one-side looks tacky but functionally it works better for the the rich 1% that purchase them....

• They don't have to mill around with us common folk
  
  
• You can create a self-contained service and amenities system with restaurants, bars, lounges, etc for all the box and club seat holders.
  
  
• You can tier the price of the boxes. The ones closet to the field will cost the most, and the ones farthest up will still cost a crazy amount of money but can be "discounted".

Detroit had to due it due to the space limitations of the old warehouse they used in Ford Field so they had a excuse, but its a trend that only seems to be big in America in some stadiums.

[king10]

Originally Posted by esquire

Everything I've heard about Levi's Stadium has been about the giant debacle surrounding the stadium's location. Apparently it's convenient to no one and getting there on game day is a huge hassle. I don't know if it's just the media piling on or if there are serious problems with the place, but suffice it to say that it has not met with glowing reviews.

As for the layout, I hate venues that put all the boxes on one side of the venue... Philips Arena in Atlanta has a similar arrangement. You end up with this giant atmosphere-killing wall on one side, and the other side is just massive to make up for the lack of seating where the boxes are.

This kind of thing might be great for maximizing revenue, but it's a fail by every other metric:

Thing is with all the boxes on one side, it brings the upper level seats on the opposite side closer to the field as therr arent rows of suites underneath them pushing them further back/up

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by king10

Thing is with all the boxes on one side, it brings the upper level seats on the opposite side closer to the field as therr arent rows of suites underneath them pushing them further back/up

But the stands are larger/more rows to compensate for the reduced capacity along the other side.

[Oilkountry]

I personally think commonwealth needs an update/reconfiguration. get rid of the endzone seats (always empty anyway) turn some sideline seating into loge rows or somthing (corners? last few rows?). add some concrete to the endzone on the jumbotron side. make a huge party deck kinda like IGF's rum hut area could even put a canopy over that area. try and knock the seating capacity down to 45k or less. mini party suites/part decks stuff like that. The endzone seating will shed 8000 seats alone if you can chew up another 3000-5000 seats on the lower "bowl" the atmosphere would be 100x better i know alot of you would argue that it's size is an asset for things like fifa and outdoor NHL games, But Edmonton doesnt need a 55k commonwealth they need a 40,000 seat stadium for the eskimos. 45k for the big events tarp off the upper corners keep everyone in general seating between the endzones. it would make the ol girl feel alot more full

please excuse my artistry work lol The idea is to remove or make the seats that never get utilized unavailable for smaller events like Eskimo games. Also to create more demand by offering #1 less seats #2 more premium seats which hardly even exist in commonwealth today. I can see them having 42000 seats available for Eskimo games if they did it right

blue: rum hut part deck type thing

red:New loge seats

black:no longer existent seats

grey: tarped off area (5000 seats all 4 corners) removed for big events

[FrankieFlowerpot]

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/tor...s-mlse-gensler.8777/page-55#post-1066246












edit: another gallery here - http://imgur.com/a/gp7Ln

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by osmo

It is hardly ever full either because much of the stands face the sunny side and leave fans baking in the Bay Area heat.

In the future they will talk about how it was a mistake to leave Candlestick.

"Baking the the Bay Area heat"?

Now thats funny.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

That's quite the canopy...

[caltrane74]

Frankenstein stadium indeed...

[king10]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Frankenstein stadium indeed...

Id argue its a stadium with character.

[blueandgoldguy]

Looking forward to seeing the Grey Cup at new BMO in 11 months.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Spliff

"Baking the the Bay Area heat"?

Now thats funny.

SF is cold due to the coastal winds but the outer areas of the Bay Area, north, and south get more typical California heat. Not uncommon for places like Richmond will be hot boxes while folks in SF they wear coats.

This is real issue with the new stadium as Santa Clara gets the typical California heat and sun. At Candlestick then you needed a blanket some nights on the top deck, while at Levi's today you will cook in your seat.

The Bay Area has many diverse mico-climates.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Frankenstein stadium indeed...

Forsure. But Its really growing on me I gotta say lol.

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

Are there any plans to put a backing on the smaller stands? It seems odd they'd just build a roof over that side and not make an attempt to block out potential wind, not to mention the press box wouldn't look nearly as out of place if they did.