Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[Acajack]

Another thing about stadiums is that few of those American stadiums have much global renown as worldwide most people don't give a shit about American sports like football and baseball.

Probably the most famous globally is Yankee Stadium, but other than that it's Old Trafford, Camp Nou, etc. that are the world leaders.

[Coldrsx]

^yup. The newest reno at the one end is great, but the 2001 addition (bottom of this photo) is awful. The rest is graceful and has indeed aged well.


http://medias.photodeck.com/a5478778-feb7-4d02-9cd5-f330dd85dbe4/14-10-11-1747_xgaplus.jpg

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Merlin f*ckin' Olsen! Holy sh*t! What a wonderful blast from the past that is. He wouldn't exactly fit into today's savage NFL environment.

I dunno. Merlin was known to be a beast out there. But the way Merlin kept putting his hand on Moon knee during the interview is suspect lol.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^yup. The newest reno at the one end is great, but the 2001 addition (bottom of this photo) is awful. The rest is graceful and has indeed aged well.

The 2001 addition is indeed hideous and totally not in keeping with the design of the rest of the facility (thank you ugly 90s architecture), but fortunately it doesn't spoil the aesthetics inside of the stadium.

I will hand it to you lucky Edmonton bastards, you now have a matching set of the best indoor and outdoor sports facilities in the country...

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another thing about stadiums is that few of those American stadiums have much global renown as worldwide most people don't give a shit about American sports like football and baseball.

Probably the most famous globally is Yankee Stadium, but other than that it's Old Trafford, Camp Nou, etc. that are the world leaders.

And even in Yankee Stadium's case, a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Yankees are a metaphor for baseball (and therefore sporting in general) in America for global popular culture, much more so than the actual stadium itself.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another thing about stadiums is that few of those American stadiums have much global renown as worldwide most people don't give a shit about American sports like football and baseball.

Probably the most famous globally is Yankee Stadium, but other than that it's Old Trafford, Camp Nou, etc. that are the world leaders.

Madison Square Garden, Wrigley, Fenway, Rose Bowl, and the LA Coliseum all spring to mind. Some European stadiums are more famous for the teams that play there (Old Trafford) than for their architectural standard or uniqueness. For my money, St. James' Park is one of the best stadia in England, although the team doesn't even play in the Premier League.

What the US has going for it is the sheer number of large (very large) stadiums primarily used for college gridiron football. They have eight stadiums over 100K capacity and 46 over 70K. It's pretty impressive.

I suppose my question is: What differentiates Commonwealth from Rice Stadium, Heinz Field, or Texas Memorial Stadium? What makes Commonwealth unique compared to these venues or other venues?

To me, uniqueness is Olympiastadion Munchen, or Stade Velodrome, or La Bombanera, or the Tokyo Dome, or the Ericsson Globe.

If you're talking about unique stadiums in Canada the only two that come to mind are SkyDome and the Big O, and maybe BC Place. The Montreal Forum and Maple Leaf Gardens would probably top the list in terms of uniqueness, history, and nostalgia - but we have this thing where we either destroy them or render them a mere shell of their former selves.

[dtown]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Madison Square Garden, Wrigley, Fenway, Rose Bowl, and the LA Coliseum all spring to mind. Some European stadiums are more famous for the teams that play there (Old Trafford) than for their architectural standard or uniqueness. For my money, St. James' Park is one of the best stadia in England, although the team doesn't even play in the Premier League.

What the US has going for it is the sheer number of large (very large) stadiums primarily used for college gridiron football. They have eight stadiums over 100K capacity and 46 over 70K. It's pretty impressive.

I suppose my question is: What differentiates Commonwealth from Rice Stadium, Heinz Field, or Texas Memorial Stadium? What makes Commonwealth unique compared to these venues or other venues?

To me, uniqueness is Olympiastadion Munchen, or Stade Velodrome, or La Bombanera, or the Tokyo Dome, or the Ericsson Globe.

If you're talking about unique stadiums in Canada the only two that come to mind are SkyDome and the Big O, and maybe BC Place.

I agree with you here. I do believe that the new stadiums in Regina and Winnipeg are beautiful facilities, however I don't really find them over the top unique, for to go back to an earlier point 'spectacular'. When I think of a new unique, spectacular stadium I think of a Cowboys Stadium outside of Dallas, or one of the proposed stadiums for the Los Angeles Rams.

Again, I have nothing against the new Canadian stadiums and I believe that they are great looking facilities. I just feel like they can't compare to some of these new NFL stadiums. Maybe it is because of the sizes I don't know.

[esquire]

^ Commonwealth may not be as architecturally distinctive as the Big O or Skydome, but that isn't to say that there is nothing unique whatsoever about it as Migs was suggesting. There is no stadium in Canada that looks like it in design or scale, and only a couple in the US (Arrowhead and Rice) that sort-of do.

It's a far cry from indoor (NHL/NBA) arenas where there is a very strong cookie cutter element to the seating bowls and where a much better argument can be made about lack of uniqueness.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Madison Square Garden, Wrigley, Fenway, Rose Bowl, and the LA Coliseum all spring to mind. Some European stadiums are more famous for the teams that play there (Old Trafford) than for their architectural standard or uniqueness. For my money, St. James' Park is one of the best stadia in England, although the team doesn't even play in the Premier League.

What the US has going for it is the sheer number of large (very large) stadiums primarily used for college gridiron football. They have eight stadiums over 100K capacity and 46 over 70K. It's pretty impressive.

I suppose my question is: What differentiates Commonwealth from Rice Stadium, Heinz Field, or Texas Memorial Stadium? What makes Commonwealth unique compared to these venues or other venues?

To me, uniqueness is Olympiastadion Munchen, or Stade Velodrome, or La Bombanera, or the Tokyo Dome, or the Ericsson Globe.

If you're talking about unique stadiums in Canada the only two that come to mind are SkyDome and the Big O, and maybe BC Place. The Montreal Forum and Maple Leaf Gardens would probably top the list in terms of uniqueness, history, and nostalgia - but we have this thing where we either destroy them or render them a mere shell of their former selves.

It's not that Commonwealth is that unique, but what makes these other stadiums (or Tennesse-Knoxville) or Ohio State or Michigan necessarily more spectacular and iconic than Commonwealth?

[esquire]

^ Good question. What goes on inside the buildings matters to some extent too. To a non-hockey fan, Maple Leaf Gardens was a rickety old depression era barn that some old crank of an owner stuffed with way too may seats. Of course, to a hockey fan, the place drips with the excellence of Leafs teams from the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s.

Commonwealth is no different in that regard... to a football fan, there is a strong association with the powerhouse dynasty Eskimos of 1978-82 and the perennially competitive teams that they've fielded in Edmonton over the years.

[UPP]

If Commonwealth were a professional sports stadium in the US, it would have been torn down 15 years ago.

If it were a college stadium in the US... it would have never been built because it's too multipurpose to be a college stadium.

In fact, I'd say it's in that sweet spot for uselessness. It's too big for the CFL, too small for major international events like the Olympics, too outdated for American sports and too new to be an iconic stadium like Fenway or Wrigley.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by UPP

If Commonwealth were a professional sports stadium in the US, it would have been torn down 15 years ago.

Explain the continued existence of Arrowhead Stadium or the Superdome then. Both older than Commonwealth, both still in operation. Obviously both have been renovated and both have been improved over the years, just as Commonwealth has been although not to the same extent given the different economics of the CFL and NFL.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Good question. What goes on inside the buildings matters to some extent too. To a non-hockey fan, Maple Leaf Gardens was a rickety old depression era barn that some old crank of an owner stuffed with way too may seats. Of course, to a hockey fan, the place drips with the excellence of Leafs teams from the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s.

Commonwealth is no different in that regard... to a football fan, there is a strong association with the powerhouse dynasty Eskimos of 1978-82 and the perennially competitive teams that they've fielded in Edmonton over the years.

And all of this is totally relative.

I've had discussions with Americans who told me that, I dunno, Tarrant-Wilkes Field is so iconic in the world of sports because it's where Billy Joe Woodruff threw the winning touchdown pass to LaVonn Dupree to secure a spot for "State" in the Orange Bowl in 1984.

On the other hand, the Montreal Forum means nothing to him, whereas for millions of guys my age it was the venue for most of our most memorable sports moments.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's not that Commonwealth is that unique, but what makes these other stadiums (or Tennesse-Knoxville) or Ohio State or Michigan necessarily more spectacular and iconic than Commonwealth?

Originally Posted by Acajack

And all of this is totally relative.

I've had discussions with Americans who told me that, I dunno, Tarrant-Wilkes Field is so iconic in the world of sports because it's where Billy Joe Woodruff threw the winning touchdown pass to LaVonn Dupree to secure a spot for "State" in the Orange Bowl in 1984.

On the other hand, the Montreal Forum means nothing to him, whereas for millions of guys my age it was the venue for most of our most memorable sports moments.

I suppose for Michigan's Stadium it would be the history. It's Michigan v Michigan State. It's the events its held over the years. It's where the current-day big-time outdoor hockey games were pioneered. It's the Big House, and for a lot of gridiron football fans it's pretty important.

You're right, though, in that it's all relative. Discussions over preferences in sport are similar to preferences in music - it's all relative and everyone experiences them differently. I can talk about the Ryogoku Kokugikan hosting Sumo tournaments for over 107 years, or how Lord's is the epitome of cricket grounds and has been since 1814. Those aren't going to mean much to the average Canadian who would be more familiar with the Commonwealths and Mosaics of the world. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a different preference for sport and where we rank the locations that host them.





A lot can be said for building new arenas and stadiums but there's a lot to be said for history and culture affiliated with a certain building or a certain location. The Leafs and the Habs lost that, Quebec City recently lost that, and a lot of other cities have too (basically every NHL team). It happens at lower levels too in smaller towns, as teams move out of their old barns and into newer, cookie-cutter arenas and stadiums. It's a shame but it happens. I wish we did more to preserve our older stadiums, when financially feasible, and still have them operate at some level.

The best example of this is Matthews Arena in Boston, the oldest multi-purpose athletic building still in use in the world. Opened in 1910, it was the original home of the Bruins, as well as hosting Northeastern since 1930, Celtics (46-55), and the Whalers (72-73).

[UPP]

Originally Posted by esquire

Explain the continued existence of Arrowhead Stadium or the Superdome then. Both older than Commonwealth, both still in operation. Obviously both have been renovated and both have been improved over the years, just as Commonwealth has been although not to the same extent given the different economics of the CFL and NFL.

Even before their respective renovations, both had a lot more club seats, and actual seats than Commonwealth. The boxes at commonwealth are a complete afterthought. And yes, the Superdome has gone through several very costly renovations totaling more than $500 million US over the years.

I don't get the love-in for Commonwealth. It's that multipurpose 70's stadium with minimal upgrades and few bells and whistles that doesn't fit its regular clientele.

It was a great build in the 70's but is completely obsolete today.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by UPP

If Commonwealth were a professional sports stadium in the US, it would have been torn down 15 years ago.

If it were a college stadium in the US... it would have never been built because it's too multipurpose to be a college stadium.

In fact, I'd say it's in that sweet spot for uselessness. It's too big for the CFL, too small for major international events like the Olympics, too outdated for American sports and too new to be an iconic stadium like Fenway or Wrigley.

Honest question, does Commonwealth have any club boxes or private suites?

[Coldrsx]

It most certainly does. Main concourse level.

The new bit on the south end.


http://www.emporis.com/images/show/893628-Large-exterior-south-concourse-and-box-seating-levels.jpg

and along east and west concourse levels.

http://www.esks.com/season-suites/

An old shot I absolutely love.


http://football.ballparks.com/CFL/Edmonton/interior.jpg

[esquire]

Did people really think that Commonwealth doesn't have boxes or club seating areas?!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

An old shot I absolutely love.


http://football.ballparks.com/CFL/Edmonton/interior.jpg

Those sweeping shots of Commonwealth are the best.

[bkd]

Originally Posted by UPP

Even before their respective renovations, both had a lot more club seats, and actual seats than Commonwealth. The boxes at commonwealth are a complete afterthought. And yes, the Superdome has gone through several very costly renovations totaling more than $500 million US over the years.

I don't get the love-in for Commonwealth. It's that multipurpose 70's stadium with minimal upgrades and few bells and whistles that doesn't fit its regular clientele.

It was a great build in the 70's but is completely obsolete today.

In a dictionary, under hyperbole, you'll find this post.