Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[HomeInMyShoes]

^Phoenix is probably the case where this happened. They have flat out blamed the inability to draw fans on the location of the arena which they are now trying to build another one in another location. Another example is Ottawa who are already tentatively planning the next hockey arena in the core as opposed to in Kanata.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^Phoenix is probably the case where this happened. They have flat out blamed the inability to draw fans on the location of the arena which they are now trying to build another one in another location. Another example is Ottawa who are already tentatively planning the next hockey arena in the core as opposed to in Kanata.

Is Ottawa suffering attendance wise playing in Kanata? I don't believe their planned move to the core has much to do with the team itself. As for the Coyotes, if they moved to downtown Phoenix would they be anymore successful? The Cardinals play in the exact same area as the Coyotes and they're not suffering. The Cowboys and Rangers don't play in Dallas (Arlington's actually further away from Dallas than Glendale is from Phoenix) and they're not suffering. The point of my response to the OP is that locating facilities outside of the core of a major center is not a recipe for guaranteed failure.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Is Ottawa suffering attendance wise playing in Kanata?

At times, yes. They're certainly definitely suffering from ticket demand by playing in Kanata. Demand for tickets would skyrocket if the team played Downtown. The hassle it is to get to CTC in Kanata cannot be overstated.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

for the Coyotes, if they moved to downtown Phoenix would they be anymore successful? The Cardinals play in the exact same area as the Coyotes and they're not suffering.

Hockey in Arizona =/= American Football in Arizona. IIRC the Coyotes did alright in their previous stint downtown but the arena itself wasn't designed for hockey in mind (akin to the currently used Barclays Center in Brooklyn).

[king10]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Is Ottawa suffering attendance wise playing in Kanata? I don't believe their planned move to the core has much to do with the team itself. As for the Coyotes, if they moved to downtown Phoenix would they be anymore successful? The Cardinals play in the exact same area as the Coyotes and they're not suffering. The Cowboys and Rangers don't play in Dallas (Arlington's actually further away from Dallas than Glendale is from Phoenix) and they're not suffering. The point of my response to the OP is that locating facilities outside of the core of a major center is not a recipe for guaranteed failure.

when you only play 8 games a year like football does, and there is a huge atmosphere of tailgating as part of its culture, its ok to build outside the core. When you build indoor arenas that are in use over 100 times a year nobody wants to drive out to the boonies and park in a swath of asphalt to see a game or event.

also location of stadiums in texas tend to be more so in the burbs. different culture down there. FC Dallas of MLS play in Frisco and people constantly complain about how shit the location is in the boonies

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by king10

when you only play 8 games a year like football does, and there is a huge atmosphere of tailgating as part of its culture, its ok to build outside the core. When you build indoor arenas that are in use over 100 times a year nobody wants to drive out to the boonies and park in a swath of asphalt to see a game or event

According to your logic the Texas Rangers should be a huge flop at the gate given they have 81 home games. Yeah, I know the actual number is a bit lower when you factor in double headers. The "boonies" argument is weak unless you include other factors.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

According to your logic the Texas Rangers should be a huge flop at the gate given they have 81 home games. Yeah, I know the actual number is a bit lower when you factor in double headers. The "boonies" argument is weak unless you include other factors.

indoor stadiums/ arenas.

you don't see many being built in the boonies. hardly a weak argument.

not many ppl want to go see a concert in the boonies. most would rather downtown.

majority of ballparks and arenas are built in the downtown. Dallas is the exception not the norm.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

According to your logic the Texas Rangers should be a huge flop at the gate given they have 81 home games. Yeah, I know the actual number is a bit lower when you factor in double headers. The "boonies" argument is weak unless you include other factors.

Well, I thought he was referring to indoor arenas, also the Texas Rangers are an established team, and lastly, Texas does have a more suburban culture that could stand building facilities in the "boonies". Of course, not everyone is always happy about that, as he mentioned in the post.

[king10]

not to mention arlington is the centre of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metro. damn smack in the middle of the two cities. not really the boonies

[Migs]

Mosaic Stadium drive by.

https://twitter.com/yqrstadium/status/723259054194184193

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Well, I thought he was referring to indoor arenas, also the Texas Rangers are an established team, and lastly, Texas does have a more suburban culture that could stand building facilities in the "boonies". Of course, not everyone is always happy about that, as he mentioned in the post.

I guess if you guys keep moving the goalposts enough you'll finally be correct. The OP's post did not distinguish between arenas and stadiums or whether or not the teams are established. If the Flames and Stampeders aren't established by now they never will be.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

According to your logic the Texas Rangers should be a huge flop at the gate given they have 81 home games. Yeah, I know the actual number is a bit lower when you factor in double headers. The "boonies" argument is weak unless you include other factors.

Is this a bad time to point out that those very same Texas Rangers have recently talked about building a new ballpark closer if not in downtown Dallas?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

According to your logic the Texas Rangers should be a huge flop at the gate given they have 81 home games. Yeah, I know the actual number is a bit lower when you factor in double headers. The "boonies" argument is weak unless you include other factors.

Is this a bad time to point out that those very same Texas Rangers have recently talked about building a new ballpark in downtown Dallas?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Is this a bad time to point out that those very same Texas Rangers have recently talked about building a new ballpark in downtown Dallas?

It would be if the reason they're thinking of moving is due to the current location. The current stadium is out of date and has too many obstructed view seats. Is Dallas giving them a nice incentive to move?

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by Migs

Mosaic Stadium drive by.

https://twitter.com/yqrstadium/status/723259054194184193

Really like this stadium.

Just not a fan of the exterior siding.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It would be if the reason they're thinking of moving is due to the current location. The current stadium is out of date and has too many obstructed view seats. Is Dallas giving them a nice incentive to move?

22 year old stadium out of date. Gotta love the states

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It would be if the reason they're thinking of moving is due to the current location. The current stadium is out of date and has too many obstructed view seats. Is Dallas giving them a nice incentive to move?

I find that really odd.

As mentioned, the building is only 22 years old and it still looks like a really nice stadium. And I love the look of the exterior.

The obstructed seats reasoning feels kind of suspect. The stadium holds 48k seats and their average attendance in the last 10 years is around 33k. Do they have between 10,000-15,000 obstructed view seats?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

At times, yes. They're certainly definitely suffering from ticket demand by playing in Kanata. Demand for tickets would skyrocket if the team played Downtown. The hassle it is to get to CTC in Kanata cannot be overstated.
.

I don't think we should overstate the Senators' attendance "problems". They averaged 95% capacity in a 19,200-seat arena during a very so-so season that just ended.

They average from the mid to upper 90s% of capacity consistently, year-in and year-out.

I suppose that if they built a new rink downtown it might even be a bit smaller, and this and the better location might create slightly greater demand for tickets, and they could charge higher prices.

Whereas at the moment tickets aren't too hard to get for most games (except for the Habs and Leafs, etc.) and so that might cap what they can charge for them.

But the Senators definitely don't have an attendance problem because they play in Kanata. (As much as I hate to say it.)

[esquire]

^ Excess capacity is probably a bigger issue than location in Ottawa. With standing room factored in, CTC is the fourth biggest venue in the NHL, yet Ottawa is the fourth smallest market in the league. That's a lot of seats to fill when the team is playing mediocre hockey. Location probably doesn't help, but it's not such a big factor on its own that a half-billion dollar solution is required.

[esquire]

...

[The Fisher Account]

I don't think it's an attendance problem. I think they're suffering from an overall lack of revenue and need to find ways to increase that.