Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by king10

same could be said for the new stand in Ottawa.

And it's been said many times, trust me!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by king10

same could be said for the new stand in Ottawa.

I agree completely. Although in some ways the small upper decks offer a premium experience... I sit in the cheap seats in the upper deck at IGF, right on the goal line. Unlike the rather crowded and congested main concourse, I never have an issue getting to the washrooms or concessions because there are simply far fewer people in the upper decks to use the upper concourse.

It's like a poor man's club seating area

[Migs]

Originally Posted by esquire

The upper deck is so small at NMS I don't even know why they bothered... seriously, why not just add the extra dozen or so rows to the lower deck and call it a day?

Upper deck is as big as 22 rows, not sure how big you think it should be. The point is that you want the club & executive suites close to the field, not having the upper deck would put them back further.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

The exterior of Mosaic Stadium belongs in the Ugly Canada thread.

Might be best to wait until the ramps & stairs are fully cladded with the translucent metal before judging the entire thing. Considering a large percentage of stadiums have little to no cladding at all like BMO or are merely concrete walls like Rogers Centre, I think the exterior of new Mosaic is fine.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by king10

The roof of BC place looks pretty good from the outside, even better at night. Though the exterior closer to ground level is nothing to write home about.

Agreed. New Mosaic is using the same translucent PTFE fabric as BCPlace. I think the roof of new Mosaic Stadium is gonna look great especially at night.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Migs

Might be best to wait until the ramps & stairs are fully cladded with the translucent metal before judging the entire thing. Considering a large percentage of stadiums have little to no cladding at all like BMO or are merely concrete walls like Rogers Centre, I think the exterior of new Mosaic is fine.

Yeah, Mosaic is better than average I'd say.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Migs

Upper deck is as big as 22 rows, not sure how big you think it should be. The point is that you want the club & executive suites close to the field, not having the upper deck would put them back further.

By my count it looks like there are 19 rows in two sections at centre field before the sections start shrinking. If it were that important to have the premium seats down low, wouldn't they have placed them lower than around row 40?

It's not a huge deal but it just seems weird. Why go to the trouble of building such small upper decks?

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

The exterior of Mosaic Stadium belongs in the Ugly Canada thread.

That's a little strong.

I think the issue is solely the "siding". Everything else that doesn't look good right now will look a lot better when it's done. But that siding really brings it down and already looks out of place. Surely they could've used something else that's no more expensive but looks better? Hell, getting rid of the patten may even help a bit.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by esquire

In fairness, I don't think many stadiums look that great from the outside. In Canada, only Olympic Stadium and the wood-veil side of TD Place really have any kind of exceptional aesthetic appeal IMO.

It looks pretty bleak compared to most stadiums as far as i'm concerned. I'd rather see the back of grandstands over something that now looks like a giant aluminium sided bowl. BCE Place and the Big O look great and even the Skydome has a lot more going on then this and it's going to be brand new. It's a shame because from the inside it looks pretty decent they just dropped the ball on it's shell. I feel the same way to an extent with QC new arena.

[epm]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It looks pretty bleak compared to most stadiums as far as i'm concerned. I'd rather see the back of grandstands over something that now looks like a giant aluminium sided bowl. BCE Place and the Big O look great and even the Skydome has a lot more going on then this and it's going to be brand new. It's a shame because from the inside it looks pretty decent they just dropped the ball on it's shell. I feel the same way to an extent with QC new arena.

Honestly the closer it gets to finished the more I'm appreciating IGF. A few less bells and whistles but honesty It's a great stadium! functions well, looks pleasing. NMS is great too don't get me wrong but If i had the choice between the 2, I'm not sure it would be a snap call. despite it being nearly 100M less I honestly think Winnipeg may have the better/equal stadium Let's hope Calgary really learns something from the 2 and really goes to work on the true Bentley of CFL stadiums. (I hope McMahon sees another 50 years) but either projects can be done really well.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by esquire

By my count it looks like there are 19 rows in two sections at centre field before the sections start shrinking. If it were that important to have the premium seats down low, wouldn't they have placed them lower than around row 40?

It's not a huge deal but it just seems weird. Why go to the trouble of building such small upper decks?

I just got a text from one of my sources, we are both wrong, it's 21 rows of seats at the highest points

[Migs]

Originally Posted by epm

Honestly the closer it gets to finished the more I'm appreciating IGF. A few less bells and whistles but honesty It's a great stadium! functions well, looks pleasing. NMS is great too don't get me wrong but If i had the choice between the 2, I'm not sure it would be a snap call. despite it being nearly 100M less I honestly think Winnipeg may have the better/equal stadium Let's hope Calgary really learns something from the 2 and really goes to work on the true Bentley of CFL stadiums. (I hope McMahon sees another 50 years) but either projects can be done really well.

Honest question. What about IGF would make it a better stadium?

IGF is awesome though, I agree.

[epm]

Originally Posted by Migs

Honest question. What about IGF would make it a better stadium?

It's all personal preference.But I like the exterior look of IGF better, I think the canopies add more protection than the fixed roof at mosiac (questionable). I also like the open concourses of IGF better. I'm a fan of the uniformed decks over the tiny upper decks and just overall awkward seating of NMS. Honestly IGF just seems more intimate to me. Now theirs thing's that NMS has over IGF and you may deem it a better stadium. but for me I like IGF overall better than NMS. just a personal opinion. If I could have IGF for 200M as apposed to NMS at 300M the choice is clear for me. If they were both 250M...toss up

[Migs]

Originally Posted by epm

It's all personal preference.But I like the exterior look of IGF better, I think the canopies add more protection than the fixed roof at mosiac (questionable). I also like the open concourses of IGF better. I'm a fan of the uniformed decks over the tiny upper decks and just overall awkward seating of NMS. Honestly IGF just seems more intimate to me. Now theirs thing's that NMS has over IGF and you may deem it a better stadium. but for me I like IGF overall better than NMS. just a personal opinion. If I could have IGF for 200M as apposed to NMS at 300M the choice is clear for me. If they were both 250M...toss up

Thanks for your comments.

IGFs roof does protect slightly more from rain but not wind or temp. NMS's translucent roof is also a plus.

Concourses of NMS will be wider than at IGF in addition to more bathrooms & elevators. NMS also has 9 fan balconies, further below grade, has a 500 person general admissions lounge, tiered loge seating, LED sports lighting, elevated lower bowl corner seats, more accessible seating, more concession points of sale, & designers with a history of designing sports stadiums which should deliver the best bang for the buck.

One thing is certain, Regina & Wpg fans are lucky.

[mistercorporate]

I have no idea what everyone is talking about, IGF is sexy as F, inside and out. It may compare to Winnipeg's stadium when completed.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

I have no idea what everyone is talking about, IGF is sexy as F, inside and out. It may compare to Winnipeg's stadium when completed.

I think there is a consensus that IGF is a great stadium.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by epm

It's all personal preference.But I like the exterior look of IGF better, I think the canopies add more protection than the fixed roof at mosiac (questionable). I also like the open concourses of IGF better. I'm a fan of the uniformed decks over the tiny upper decks and just overall awkward seating of NMS. Honestly IGF just seems more intimate to me. Now theirs thing's that NMS has over IGF and you may deem it a better stadium. but for me I like IGF overall better than NMS. just a personal opinion. If I could have IGF for 200M as apposed to NMS at 300M the choice is clear for me. If they were both 250M...toss up

They're actually getting closer together in costs. The original build was around $210ill, and there have been something to the order of $30-40 mill in deficiencies that have been/are in the process of being rectified.

Mosaic is still on budget, so they are now only $30-40 mill apart, though of course, Mosaic has time to rack up some extra costs.

But for all intents and purposes, it's a similar cost for similar stadiums in similar locations.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Nathan

But for all intents and purposes, it's a similar cost for similar stadiums in similar locations.

I think that's a fair assessment. We've been staring at drawings and photos for years so we tend to fixate on the differences between the two, but if you take a step back it's clear that the facilities have much in common in many different respects.

I'd say that Winnipeg and Regina have gone from a matching set of old frankenstadiums to a matching set of new bowls.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by esquire

I think that's a fair assessment. We've been staring at drawings and photos for years so we tend to fixate on the differences between the two, but if you take a step back it's clear that the facilities have much in common in many different respects.

I'd say that Winnipeg and Regina have gone from a matching set of old frankenstadiums to a matching set of new bowls.

I was thinking of putting that down in my last message too.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by Migs

I think there is a consensus that IGF is a great stadium.

Sorry, my bad, i meant new mosaic looks great too.