Regina | New Mosaic Stadium

[OOO AHH OGEMA]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Just looking at the east side roof construction. Will there be one more row of supports extending over the seating area?

From the renderings I've seen, that appears to be it.

[UPP]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Yeah, we get it, you are go-go-ga-ga and uncritical over it.

It was brought up again. If a little criticism makes you that cranky perhaps it's not my issue...

I suppose if your property taxes went up to pay for the exterior upgrades you'd be extra cranky too.

Let's not forget, this stadium is being funded in part by a province of 1.1 million, a city of 220,000 and a fan base of slightly more than 30,000. There is no billionaire owner to pony up any portion of the stadium costs and the exterior will reflect that.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by UPP

I suppose if your property taxes went up to pay for the exterior upgrades you'd be extra cranky too.

Let's not forget, this stadium is being funded in part by a province of 1.1 million, a city of 220,000 and a fan base of slightly more than 30,000. There is no billionaire owner to pony up any portion of the stadium costs and the exterior will reflect that.

I know what you're trying to get at, but the fan base is a fair bit higher than 30k .

But yes... a sizeable chunk is to be paid by the ~33k spectators in attendance at each game.

[Rodo Regina Lover]

When I was getting my garage built I wanted Hardyboard (sp) as my siding as I hated vinyl siding. Then I saw a home on south Argle Rd. using very similar siding to the new stadium, and I asked my contractor if it wasn't more expensive than the Hardyboard (sp) I'd like go with that. He said no way because it was way MORE expensive to go that route, and by the way Hardyboard (sp) is NOT cheap!! Love the exterior of the stadium!!

[Migs]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

I finally figured out where HKS got there inspiration from! No wait, maybe it was here.

I love how you continuously ignore the glass walls, Tyndall stone, mesh metal cladding, fabric roof, & the other exterior finishings. Miserable people will be miserable I guess.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Migs

I love how you continuously ignore the glass walls, Tyndall stone, mesh metal cladding, fabric roof, & the other exterior finishings. Miserable people will be miserable I guess.

Nice to see that even Migs has adopted a sunny way of looking at the world

[UPP]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I know what you're trying to get at, but the fan base is a fair bit higher than 30k .

But yes... a sizeable chunk is to be paid by the ~33k spectators in attendance at each game.

Well, in fact, it will be the 27,000 season ticket holders who will foot the largest part of the bill and not the so-called legions of fans who watch from their couches.

For instance, I pay $240 per year in stadium fees through my season tickets. Compare that to the average person from Saskatchewan who will pay around $72 for the stadium and the average Reginan who will pay around an additional $272 for the stadium.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by UPP

Well, in fact, it will be the 27,000 season ticket holders who will foot the largest part of the bill and not the so-called legions of fans who watch from their couches.

For instance, I pay $240 per year in stadium fees through my season tickets. Compare that to the average person from Saskatchewan who will pay around $72 for the stadium and the average Reginan who will pay around an additional $272 for the stadium.

I'm in the same boat as you getting dinged in all 3 groups, but it would have been more accurate to say ~33k of the fanbase. The Riders also put upwards of $40 mill into the Stadium, which wouldn't have been possible without the "so-called" legions of fans you're being so dismissive of.

Besides, we've been paying a "stadium improvement" fee for a number of years for various things (Maxtron(s), new/expanded seating, etc); it's nice to have it finally going toward an actual major improvement.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by UPP

Well, in fact, it will be the 27,000 season ticket holders who will foot the largest part of the bill and not the so-called legions of fans who watch from their couches.

For instance, I pay $240 per year in stadium fees through my season tickets. Compare that to the average person from Saskatchewan who will pay around $72 for the stadium and the average Reginan who will pay around an additional $272 for the stadium.

True...but many people like myself don't even watch the sport, and don't want a stadium built for a private enterprise in a private league in the first place. So we get to complain the most.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Festivus

True...but many people like myself don't even watch the sport, and don't want a stadium built for a private enterprise in a private league in the first place. So we get to complain the most.

Not really a private enterprise though. Profits don't go into anyone's pockets and millions make their way back into the province for sporting/community initiatives. Yes, it's not a completely volunteer-based organisation (though even charities often aren't), but it's not really a private organisation either.

It's in a Grey zone between the two, though the fact that the Riders have "not-for-profit" status and don't pay provincial or federal taxes does rule out the pure "private enterprise" label that detractors like to use.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by Rodo Regina Lover

When I was getting my garage built I wanted Hardyboard (sp) as my siding as I hated vinyl siding. Then I saw a home on south Argle Rd. using very similar siding to the new stadium, and I asked my contractor if it wasn't more expensive than the Hardyboard (sp) I'd like go with that. He said no way because it was way MORE expensive to go that route, and by the way Hardyboard (sp) is NOT cheap!! Love the exterior of the stadium!!

You talking about this place?
https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Singl...ORNTON-AVENUE-Regina-Saskatchewan-S4S1J4
(Argyle & Thornton, a few blocks north of 25th)

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Not really a private enterprise though. Profits don't go into anyone's pockets and millions make their way back into the province for sporting/community initiatives. Yes, it's not a completely volunteer-based organisation (though even charities often aren't), but it's not really a private organisation either.

It's in a Grey zone between the two, though the fact that the Riders have "not-for-profit" status and don't pay provincial or federal taxes does rule out the pure "private enterprise" label that detractors like to use.

It may be a not-for-profit...but my point and opinion still stands, that it's a singular entity that exists within a private for-profit organization of teams (it being the only non-profit component) that makes lots of money.

Really from a free-enterprise standpoint there is no reason the CFL or NFL or anyone should have 30,000-seat stadiums. If you based it on actual demand and what it would cost to build (and maintain) and factored that into ticket prices you'd probably see 5,000-person stadiums instead. I'm not a fan of government subsidizing certain forms of entertainment and not others, especially for leagues where players make far more than the median Canadian salary. If you took out the massive government subsidies of professional sports in Canada (and the US) you'd have a more realistic image of what sport should be like, in terms of scope and scale. However, it's a part of life and I've accepted that, I just don't like it.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming 5-10 years as cable TV collapses (network too) and advertising revenue plummets. The NFL in particular is reliant on that money, and if they were to charge people the true cost of watching streams of games, it would be quite and expensive hobby (estimates of around $30-$40/mo for streamed NFL games). While many fans will pay this, all won't, which means big drops in revenue. I would bet we're going to see a big shrinkage of professional sports in North America in the next 10 years as revenue sources start to decrease. Just a prediction though!

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Festivus

It may be a not-for-profit...but my point and opinion still stands, that it's a singular entity that exists within a private for-profit organization of teams (it being the only non-profit component) that makes lots of money.

Really from a free-enterprise standpoint there is no reason the CFL or NFL or anyone should have 30,000-seat stadiums. If you based it on actual demand and what it would cost to build (and maintain) and factored that into ticket prices you'd probably see 5,000-person stadiums instead. I'm not a fan of government subsidizing certain forms of entertainment and not others, especially for leagues where players make far more than the median Canadian salary. If you took out the massive government subsidies of professional sports in Canada (and the US) you'd have a more realistic image of what sport should be like, in terms of scope and scale. However, it's a part of life and I've accepted that, I just don't like it.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming 5-10 years as cable TV collapses (network too) and advertising revenue plummets. The NFL in particular is reliant on that money, and if they were to charge people the true cost of watching streams of games, it would be quite and expensive hobby (estimates of around $30-$40/mo for streamed NFL games). While many fans will pay this, all won't, which means big drops in revenue. I would bet we're going to see a big shrinkage of professional sports in North America in the next 10 years as revenue sources start to decrease. Just a prediction though!

Winnipeg and Edmonton are also not-for-profits, so 1/3 of the teams.

I agree the TV revenue thing will be very interesting. Of the North American leagues, the CFL is closest to its "sustainable" value as it has for almost all of its life been a gate-driven league.

I'm against the massive stadium subsidies you generally see south of the border, especially when they involve tearing down a building that is nowhere near its useable lifespan.

Granted I'm a fan, but I don't find the replacement of a stadium that's in pretty bad shape and some of whose components are > 60 years old to be a terrible thing. Yes, it is costing the taxpayer some, but it's not so much that the city is struggling under the weight like happens in some American locales (especially when they fund multiple types of facilities for different sports).

But this is likely a debate we won't agree on and was hashed out ad nauseam a couple of years back anyway.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I'm against the massive stadium subsidies you generally see south of the border, especially when they involve tearing down a building that is nowhere near its useable lifespan.

Yeah, that's a big difference between the new CFL venues and what you typically see in the big 4 US sports leagues... the CFL stadiums that have been/are being decommissioned have been/are badly outdated and dilapidated to the point where they do not meet any modern standards. CanadInns dated back to the 1950s and Mosaic/Ivor Wynne are/were even older than that.

I can accept publicly funded sports venues as a civic amenity once every couple of generations, but when you're tearing down 20 year old publicly funded privately run venues that are still 100% functional like in Atlanta to make way for replacements, that's when it gets offensive.

[UPP]

Originally Posted by esquire

Yeah, that's a big difference between the new CFL venues and what you typically see in the big 4 US sports leagues... the CFL stadiums that have been/are being decommissioned have been/are badly outdated and dilapidated to the point where they do not meet any modern standards. CanadInns dated back to the 1950s and Mosaic/Ivor Wynne are/were even older than that.

I can accept publicly funded sports venues as a civic amenity once every couple of generations, but when you're tearing down 20 year old publicly funded privately run venues that are still 100% functional like in Atlanta to make way for replacements, that's when it gets offensive.

The Atlanta example is obscene.

My point is exactly that though. We don't have a billionaire to pay for the stadium so we are relying on the users (Rider ticket holders) and taxpayers. This means we get some metal-cladded exteriors. I'm fine with that as I believe I'm already paying enough for a new facility.

It's a freakin football field, not an art gallery or a university assembly hall.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Migs

I love how you continuously ignore the glass walls, Tyndall stone, mesh metal cladding, fabric roof, & the other exterior finishings. Miserable people will be miserable I guess.

You keep calling me miserable because I'm critical. I'm perfectly happy. I just don't like have to look at ugly things every day.

And it is your lack of reading ability that shows more than anything, since the other aspects have been addressed. Above all, the cut-rate siding is the vast majority of the siding.

I get the feeling that majority of you think that these, glossy, unrealistic renders are what the stadium is going to look like. Take your phone with you and go stand by the stadium. It's not that refined.

The SE corner that of has finished tyndall stone does not look especially good. It doesn't look bad per-se but the use of rough-hewn stone gives the entire face an unfinished, concrete-like look. The roughness of it casts small shadows making it largely unpleasant and uninspired.

The steel mesh is very limited as to be useless.

The roof is the only part that is OK. It's has somewhat interesting lines and the material is acceptable.

The glass is...glass. It's just large amounts of glass randomly placed in the middle. Very little of the glass usage is interesting or contains any type of geometry. It just sits there. The usage of glass wouldn't look out of place in any suburban office park from the 1980s.

Overall every single component of the exterior is a downgrade from the plans originally put forward on Dewdney.

I know you are all are just getting super excited in the mid-section that your team will have a new home. That's fine, it's obviously better than Taylor Field. But the stadium didn't need to be this bland and uninspiring.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Rodo Regina Lover

When I was getting my garage built I wanted Hardyboard (sp) as my siding as I hated vinyl siding. Then I saw a home on south Argle Rd. using very similar siding to the new stadium, and I asked my contractor if it wasn't more expensive than the Hardyboard (sp) I'd like go with that. He said no way because it was way MORE expensive to go that route, and by the way Hardyboard (sp) is NOT cheap!! Love the exterior of the stadium!!

Your contractor is either a liar or you misinterpreted your questions.

The labour of installing alternating pieces of corrugated metal, clear-grade cedar and HardiePanel is what would raise the cost. Additionally, the galvanized metal used on Argyle is a completely different grade and cost than the industrial grade, large scale panels used on the stadium.

At this point I'm pretty sure that most of you are trolling me at this point. There's not way this many people can objectively like the exterior in the context of other stadiums in North America. If your rating scale is based solely on Taylor field...then maybe.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by UPP

I suppose if your property taxes went up to pay for the exterior upgrades you'd be extra cranky too.

Let's not forget, this stadium is being funded in part by a province of 1.1 million, a city of 220,000 and a fan base of slightly more than 30,000. There is no billionaire owner to pony up any portion of the stadium costs and the exterior will reflect that.

Which brings up the real crux of the issue. 1.07M out of 1.10M Saskatchewanians will not be using the stadium.

And no, the couple hundred high school football fans do not count.

Having a new stadium will not increase the pleasure pf the overwhelming majority of fans watching at home on their 55" HD television.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by UPP

It's a freakin football field, not an art gallery or a university assembly hall.

By that logic public art galleries should probably be housed in tents since they have a minuscule fan-base compared to the Riders.

[Migs]

Thanks for proving my point Chad!