Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[esquire]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

Hard to say if Federal funding would make any difference to any projects in Canada, how would one know. But maybe if one were to do a comparison of similar events such as a PanAm games one could see a difference Government funding can make.

case in point Winnipeg's PanAm games in 1999 cost $142Million and made a profit of $8million but all it's sporting facilities used were ones that Winnipeg already had or were temporary facilities with no legacy after the games, Winnipeg had nothing to show for new sporting facilities after it's games

Toronto's PanAm games in 2015 cost $2.6 Billion and left a swath of shiny new legacy sporting facilities in Golden Horseshoe care of not only municipal, & provincial but also Federal Government. Federal funding amounted to several times more than Winnipeg's entire PanAm budget.

Not only does Toronto had national media backing its games but also twenty times the Federal support.
Is it fair? maybe..Toronto has a lot more pull for national media attention for ingratiating it's self & Feds know this, so if it wants funding from Ottawa, it gets it. period.



https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/panamga...innipeg-minimal-compared-to-toronto.html

We're getting a bit off track here, but I don't see why federal funding has to be doled out the way you give cookies to children, e.g. everyone gets the same share no matter what. Toronto's needs were different than Winnipeg's. They didn't have that much sports infrastructure for a city of that size, so this was their chance to make up for lost time. Winnipeg already had a pretty good legacy from the 1967 games, so some renovations and improvements were all that was necessary in most cases. However, it's false to say that there were no new facilities built for the 1999 Pan Am Games... I can think of two off the top of my head, perhaps there are others:





Also, the world has changed since 1999, that's why the security budget for the Toronto games was bigger than the Winnipeg games' entire budget. And that's not even getting into the fact that Toronto has more than double the population of Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined, which plays into how much gets spent there.

[EpicPonyTime]

I imagine the budget for Toronto also had to do with the fact the city was showcasing them as a huge event. They had to budget accordingly. Winnipeg always meant to do them for cheap. You can't have an event of the scale Toronto tried projecting without spending tons of money, especially when a lot of people think it was the first stepping stone to the Olympics.

[WhipperSnapper]

You're missing the obvious. 17 years elapsed between the two. There's little things called inflation and terrorism not to mention dozens of new sports.

I mean Saskatchewan got screwed paying $278 million for a cute little football stadium when they could of built Skydome for $570 million.

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

You're missing the obvious. 17 years elapsed between the two. There's little things called inflation and terrorism not to mention dozens of new sports.

I mean Saskatchewan got screwed paying $278 million for a cute little football stadium when they could of built Skydome for $570 million.

I'm sure Toronto could have done the games for cheaper than they did. Not sure why you're still on the Saskatchewan-bashing train.

[osmo]

Toronto overpaid for the Pan-Ams big time. Aside from the security costs (even that was bloated, far too many front-end security minions sitting around on their phones), they could have shaved a tonne of money of many parts. Toronto did spend on large infrastructure projects though. The Union-Pearson Rail-Link was a project for the Pan-Ams and one can argue if it was worth the money (I think it was... just not as it was constructed, nor the technology was chosen) that burned a big chunk of the massive 2+ billion price tag.

These sporting events can be run lean or even make profits if you know what you are doing. LA made money on its Olympics, Atalanta broke even, Calgary and Winnipeg both turned were in the black for their Olympics and Pan-Am games respectively.

Toronto did not need to do a "GTA Games" this was all purely for politics and they could have hosted the event cheaply spread put amongst the Toronto University campuses.

[WhipperSnapper]

OMG! LMAO! You fool. I'm making a mockery of costs comparisons without including inflation using recent examples from this thread.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by osmo

Toronto overpaid for the Pan-Ams big time. Aside from the security costs (even that was bloated, far too many front-end security minions sitting around on their phones), they could have shaved a tonne of money of many parts. Toronto did spend on large infrastructure projects though. The Union-Pearson Rail-Link was a project for the Pan-Ams and one can argue if it was worth the money (I think it was... just not as it was constructed, nor the technology was chosen) that burned a big chunk of the massive 2+ billion price tag.

These sporting events can be run lean or even make profits if you know what you are doing. LA made money on its Olympics, Atalanta broke even, Calgary and Winnipeg both turned were in the black for their Olympics and Pan-Am games respectively.

Toronto did not need to do a "GTA Games" this was all purely for politics and they could have hosted the event cheaply spread put amongst the Toronto University campuses.

For sure. This was originally a Hamilton Games. It could have been done there at a far more reasonable cost than region wide and in high priced, booming Toronto. This was the province's vision. Toronto was an indifferent participant but, warmed up a tad as the games advanced forward.

The games provided the perfect opportunity for the province to finally exercise themselves from the West Donlands which had, to that point, being one fail disaster after another.

[Oilkountry]

[QUOTE=esquire;7833104]What's really crazy is that we're now seeing 90s-built stadiums, which are gigantic and hugely expensive in their own right, being replaced by a generation of even more gigantic and expensive stadiums. (On the public's dime of course, because even though single payer healthcare is socialism, encouraging the development of pro football with government money is apparently red-blooded American capitalism at its finest.)

St Louis is a prime example of this. This 2 decade old (1995) Stadium wasn't prestigious enough for the NFL.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Bandage

and now it looks like a giant bag of stale hickory sticks was dumped along the shores of the Rideau canal

yeah what were they thinking?

[TorontoDrew]

I do love Hickory Sticks, probably why I like that stadium.

[Oilkountry]

I love the way it looks, elegant in a lot of ways

[Migs]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

LOL, all of what you just said is hilarious. Yes we are super jealous you have a new "CFL" stadium. Hell we can't fill seats for the Argo's and they are forced to piggy back off our much more popular soccer team. Tell you what, we'll be jealous of you when you have an NHL arena, MLB Stadium. We'll also be jealous when you have 4 pro teams, 5 if you want to count CFL, lol.

Im a football fan, couldn't care less about other sports, especially ones of franchises that haven't won anything since disco was cool.

As for our welfare province (chuckles) : Ontario's economy is surging after years of lagging behind the oil-producing provinces.

Don't believe it? There's plenty of evidence.

Canada's big banks are forecasting that Ontario will lead the country in economic growth this year or be within a hair of the top of the pack. Unemployment sits at its lowest level in 16 years. And that economic success is being felt across a range of sectors, including manufacturing, real estate, finance and technology.

full story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-economy-provincial-economic-growth-forecast-1.4131428

Yet you still cash in cheques for billions in welfare transfer payments from other provinces. I think there is a name for that....

Still though, it's a decent little CFL stadium you have now, congrats, super jealous here. Love the cladding.

Thanks, we love it. Much more than the concrete walls of the Skydome.

[osmo]

[QUOTE=Oilkountry;7837171]

Originally Posted by esquire

What's really crazy is that we're now seeing 90s-built stadiums, which are gigantic and hugely expensive in their own right, being replaced by a generation of even more gigantic and expensive stadiums. (On the public's dime of course, because even though single payer healthcare is socialism, encouraging the development of pro football with government money is apparently red-blooded American capitalism at its finest.)

St Louis is a prime example of this. This 2 decade old (1995) Stadium wasn't prestigious enough for the NFL.

St Louis was early as one of the first "new" domes in the early 90s. They made the mistake in building a functional stadium versus over building with lots of fluff. Detroit did the same with the Palace which was built very big in the suburbs but didn't have any modern perks or toys.

There has to be a line in the sand. Either the public pays and gets a cut of event generated revenues and the team is on the hook for capital costs into the future with tax breaks, or the team builds it and gets all the money and gets left alone to do what it wants with its land.

Skydome was over built which has made it still usefull long term. They should of put money into making it truly a multipurpose facility with proper drainage and climate switch overs. It will never be anthing other than a fancy ballpark that can host the odd big time event, which is fine. I don't ever see that thing going away, not for another 20 years at least when the land is worth so much that CP starts to make a fuss about it.

[blueandgoldguy]

Regarding comments about funding for Toronto/hamilton's pan am games, yes, they received more federal funding than the Winnipeg/other small towns did. However, it's important to note that the ratio of federal funding to municipal/provincial funding was virtually the same between the 2 games.

If Winnipeg and the province had come to an agreement that there be more of a legacy from facilities/transit of the 1999 games (a couple of rt lines and a permanent velodrome etc.) and increased their expenditures accordingly than you can be sure there would have been corresponding increase in public funds provided by the feds.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

St Louis is a prime example of this. This 2 decade old (1995) Stadium wasn't prestigious enough for the NFL.

Yep. Although I will concede that is really a catastrophe of a stadium. The roof, specifically. It somehow makes the whole place look like a big, ugly hangar. The Alamodome is almost as bad in that regard.



I wonder what St. Louis will do with that stadium? If I recall correctly, I don't think it's even been paid off. I hope the Kurt Warner magic carpet ride the Rams had that one season is worth the financial disaster it all turned out to be.

PS - Hurry up and send us more money Migs, there are some repairs to IGF that we need someone to pay for!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Regarding comments about funding for Toronto/hamilton's pan am games, yes, they received more federal funding than the Winnipeg/other small towns did. However, it's important to note that the ratio of federal funding to municipal/provincial funding was virtually the same between the 2 games.

If Winnipeg and the province had come to an agreement that there be more of a legacy from facilities/transit of the 1999 games (a couple of rt lines and a permanent velodrome etc.) and increased their expenditures accordingly than you can be sure there would have been corresponding increase in public funds provided by the feds.

The public mentality in Winnipeg was a lot different in the mid 90s. Even $142 million was seen as an exorbitantly expensive amount to be paying for the Games... had the number been $500 million to account for more legacy projects, people would have lost their minds. It would have never flown.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by esquire

The public mentality in Winnipeg was a lot different in the mid 90s. Even $142 million was seen as an exorbitantly expensive amount to be paying for the Games... had the number been $500 million to account for more legacy projects, people would have lost their minds. It would have never flown.

I agree. When you factor in the size of manitoba then (barely 1 million) that would have been seen as far too exorbitant. Still, it would have been nice to have a new Pan Am pool instead of a light refurb and atrium addition as well as a new stadium (rather than the piddly $10 million they spent on a refurb to kick it down the road) prior to the incredible escalation in construction costs that occurred in the new millenium. I'm sure IGF would have been less than $100 million if built in the 90s.

[WhipperSnapper]

Is there something in the water out in Saskatchewan that kills brain cells?

Seriously? Bringing up that Ontario is finally tapping the equalization fund is going to offend anyone? Keep in mind too you guys are entirely committed to a resource economy.

[EpicPonyTime]

With inflation, the Winnipeg games cost $190 million. So inflation clearly doesn't play a notable factor in the cost difference. Lmao.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Is there something in the water out in Saskatchewan that kills brain cells?

Seriously? Bringing up that Ontario is finally tapping the equalization fund is going to offend anyone? Keep in mind too you guys are entirely committed to a resource economy.

Apparently it did, so...

[wave46]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

I'm sure Toronto could have done the games for cheaper than they did.

Probably not cheaper than Winnipeg, but no where near the $2.5 billion they actually spent. That was positively ludicrous money for what is a fairly minor event in the grand scheme of things.

In a time of fiscal restraint, blowing money on a 2 week party that few care about is silly.