Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2 - Page 403

Dalreg · #**8041** Posted **Oct 27, 2016, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

I wouldn't really write off his claim. The big O doesn't hold a big place in the Montreal sports landscape today BUT the building itself was a phenom back in the 70's. The skydome was the first of it's kind back in 89. I'm sure T.O. wishes it could go back and something more along the lines of Seattle but that shouldn't take away from how amazing the dome is.

Commonwealth is amazing. It's truly a beautiful building and could quite easily be brought up to today's standards. It's actually equally if not more sound in terms of technology than IGF in almost all aspects. New bigger scoreboard and sound system (like mentioned above) plus Full LED rings, WIFI capabilities. The 2010 addition brought things like clubs ect. It may not be as refined and sleek as the new ones but if I had to pick THF,TD or commonwealth ill go with The big green older guy every time. I went to an eskimos game a month ago with 33,000 people and had a blast.

Everyone is biased towards their own. You have a love on for Edmonton and all things associated with it. Good on you. Watching football in a half full stadium doesn't cut it for me. I'll take 95% full in Regina or Hamilton any day. Full stadiums just have a vibe with them.

bkd · #**8042** Posted **Oct 28, 2016, 3:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Everyone is biased towards their own. You have a love on for Edmonton and all things associated with it. Good on you. Watching football in a half full stadium doesn't cut it for me. I'll take 95% full in Regina or Hamilton any day. Full stadiums just have a vibe with them.

So you ignore the actual points he makes, make a passive aggressive ad hominem attack on the poster and boil the argument down to how full a stadium is being the determining factor of how it should be compared to other stadia. Doesn't sound very convincing, but to each their own.

Commonwealth's main tenant may be a football team but it has served its purpose tremendously well as a multipurpose facility throughout its history. And Edmonton is better for it having attracted the world class sporting events, amazing concerts and other events that have boosted the profile of the city in the process.

Oilkountry · #**8043** Posted **Oct 28, 2016, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Everyone is biased towards their own. You have a love on for Edmonton and all things associated with it. Good on you. Watching football in a half full stadium doesn't cut it for me. I'll take 95% full in Regina or Hamilton any day. Full stadiums just have a vibe with them.

I live in Edmonton but I have a biased towards Winnipeg sports venues if any. I myself have been critical of the stadium, That doesn't mean I can't see the value in Commonwealth's size and age. I agree they need do drop 10,000 seats and reconfigure the end zones for Eskimo games but on a community level commonwealth's size actually has landed it a few major events. But either then that commonwealth is an amazing experience. Pictures dont do it justice in anyway. Me and my buddy had a race from the bottom of the stairs to the top on the upper level...i didnt make it

Coldrsx · #**8044** Posted **Oct 28, 2016, 5:47 PM**

A couple of shots from the Caps/Oilers the other night.

SkydivePilot · #**8045** Posted **Oct 28, 2016, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This is the proper plural term for "stadium"

I gather you weren't much of a fan of classics in school.........

Yup. The English language is going to hell in a handbasket.

VIce · #**8046** Posted **Oct 28, 2016, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

A couple of shots from the Caps/Oilers the other night.

"Rogers Lace", huh? Put that on the list of things I don't wanna see.

drummer_god · #**8047** Posted **Oct 28, 2016, 10:35 PM**

Once at your seat every hockey arena looks pretty generic, unlike football and baseball.

Dalreg · #**8048** Posted **Oct 28, 2016, 11:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkd

So you ignore the actual points he makes, make a passive aggressive ad hominem attack on the poster and boil the argument down to how full a stadium is being the determining factor of how it should be compared to other stadia. Doesn't sound very convincing, but to each their own.

Commonwealth's main tenant may be a football team but it has served its purpose tremendously well as a multipurpose facility throughout its history. And Edmonton is better for it having attracted the world class sporting events, amazing concerts and other events that have boosted the profile of the city in the process.

Spin doctor to the rescue. Say what you want.

blueandgoldguy · #**8049** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer_god

Once at your seat every hockey arena looks pretty generic, unlike football and baseball.

Definitely not like the old days - and by old I don't mean all that old, probably pre-90s before the construction boom of new arenas throughout North America - when many of the arenas had a distinctive look to the seating arrangement. Even less iconic arenas with little in the way of past winning teams, such as Winnipeg Arena, had a unique seating arrangement.

The only NHL arena I can think of that doesn't have a generic interior is the Saddledome with its small and non-uniform lower bowl.

Columbus' and Nashville's arenas are somewhat non-uniform as well though now where near as distinctive as the arenas of yesteryear.

esquire · #**8050** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 2:56 AM**

^ It should be noted that the Saddledome had a very conventional seating layout for the first 12 years or so of its history... it wasn't until the mid 90s when it was heavily altered by shrinking part of the lower bowl to bring in boxes situated fairly close to the ice.

The irony there, of course, being that the small post-renovation lower bowl has been cited as a reason why the Flames need a new arena.

craner · #**8051** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 3:02 AM**

... Barclays ?

bkd · #**8052** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 5:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Spin doctor to the rescue. Say what you want.

You're a beacon of intelligence.

GreaterMontréal · #**8053** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 5:53 AM**

Quote:

What are the tower cranes up to next to the Big O and what's the tower for in the lagoon at La Ronde? Fireworks?

all the concrete slabs on the tower will be replaced by curtain walls, 12 floors. Like Martin Mtl said, the tower is being turned into an office building. $60M for the exterior renovations. those who will work there will have a great view.
+ a new state of the art cable car.

something spectacular is planned for the rooftop of the tower.

speedog · #**8054** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 7:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This is the proper plural term for "stadium"

I gather you weren't much of a fan of classics in school.........

Maybe the correct Latin plural form of stadium but stadiums is just as correct and a much more widely accepted and utilized plural form. Speaking of it as not being a fan of classics certainly paints one in a very certain way, wear those pants if they fit, eh.

eemy · #**8055** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 12:12 PM**

Yeah, Barclay's is definitely the most distinctive arena, and certainly not in a good way.

isaidso · #**8056** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 2:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedog

Maybe the correct Latin plural form of stadium but stadiums is just as correct and a much more widely accepted and utilized plural form.

Um ....no. Arguing that 'stadiums' is accepted because a lot of people do it only suggests that there are a lot of uneducated people around. And widely accepted where? Appalachia? It's stadia or stadium.

When someone points out an error it's best just to say thank you rather than dig your hole deeper. There's no shame in not knowing. No one knows everything.

UrbanClimate · #**8057** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 2:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer_god

Once at your seat every hockey arena looks pretty generic, unlike football and baseball.

Totally agree. They all look identical regardless of how many billions of dollars are spent on them. Thank goodness for football stadiums -- much more pleasing on the eyes.

Brizzy82 · #**8058** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

Um ....no. Arguing that 'stadiums' is accepted because a lot of people do it only suggests that there are a lot of uneducated people around. And widely accepted where? Appalachia? It's stadia or stadium.

When someone points out an error it's best just to say thank you rather than dig your hole deeper. There's no shame in not knowing. No one knows everything.

...

dreambrother808 · #**8059** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 4:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

Um ....no. Arguing that 'stadiums' is accepted because a lot of people do it only suggests that there are a lot of uneducated people around. And widely accepted where? Appalachia? It's stadia or stadium.

Every language is entirely based on such mutations and "errors" over time that then become common usage. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

eemy · #**8060** Posted **Oct 29, 2016, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

Um ....no. Arguing that 'stadiums' is accepted because a lot of people do it only suggests that there are a lot of uneducated people around. And widely accepted where? Appalachia? It's stadia or stadium.

When someone points out an error it's best just to say thank you rather than dig your hole deeper. There's no shame in not knowing. No one knows everything.

We don't have the Académie anglaise. English isn't and has never been a prescriptivist language. In any case, stadiums is widely published in both British and American English (where it surpassed stadia in usage in the 1990s).