Saskatoon Construction III

[riders78]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

Interestingly enough, this is exactly what happened to Sask Place. It was one of the last big arenas built before revenue-drivers like luxury boxes became industry standard. So even from the start, Sask Place has been obsolete.

Also most of the arenas in the list of renovated buildings have been demolished. The Auditorium in Buffalo was only used for 6 years after renovation.

[Arts]

Originally Posted by riders78

Also most of the arenas in the list of renovated buildings have been demolished. The Auditorium in Buffalo was only used for 6 years after renovation.

This is exactly my concern about spending $100M to renovate the current arena - it's not good value, but at the same time neither is building a new one downtown before it's needed... plus like SaskScraper mentioned above if not designed very thoughtfully it will be obsolete long before the budgeted lifespan (just like the current one).

[alt_center]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

I'd think SaskTel Centre's raising roof project would cost less than the above examples since it's raising the roof and re-enforcing the upper girders to bring up to current structural standards in the industry and isn't to necessarily add huge amount of more seats... but while they are at it they probably could add an extra couple thousand seats to make it the size of other arenas in North America that attract large scale shows.

Something I'm noticing with arena discussion with-in city of Saskatoon is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of informed decisions being made. How can anyone say that a new arena or a reno'd arena is the way to go until a break down in cost is illustrated for people to decide which direction to go.

The worst thing would be to make a rash decision to quickly construct a new arena that's built obsolete within a few years by not being informed enough about new concepts in arena architecture that could add features and cost efficiencies.

Its just my hunch that raising the roof at SaskTel Center would cost a lot of money (not to mention the time it would take). A thorough reno that includes a raised roof might begin to approach the cost of a new build. At some point, we'd probably be better off doing it correctly now rather than doubling down on past mistakes.

But I totally agree that we need data. And I also think that decision making in Saskatoon has historically been very poor.

I am pro "informed decision making". I also obviously favor a downtown location, but I am not in favor of pouring tax-payer dollars into white elephant projects regardless of their location. Any decision must be justifiable.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by roryn1

I don’t think highway 16 compares to highway 1 since 16 isn’t even doubled on the other side, but the highway to PA from Saskatoon is the busiest road in the entire province.

Calculating the sum of inward and outward traffic per day outside of Saskatoon where the future bypass would be would be utilizing ~100,000 vehicles per day, whereas Regina’s will be utilized be ~75,000. That’s a pretty significant difference. Seems like it was mainly fully built out just for the GTH. These are some significant projects that Saskatoon doesn’t seem to be reaping the benefit of when we have 70,000 more people in our metropolis. I call political bias.

Honestly, I don't know were you get this? The Sask Party is widely know to be anti-Regina, especially compared to the NDP.

Regina does not have a Children's Hospital or the main surgical/specialty hospital, main university, largest arena, $500 million north commuter parkway and bridges project, South Bridge plus 4 interchanges, etc. all partially funded by the province.

Also your referenced volume map shows Hwy 1 west in Regina as the busiest in the province.

[WoodlandCritter]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Honestly, I don't know were you get this? The Sask Party is widely know to be anti-Regina, especially compared to the NDP.

Regina does not have a Children's Hospital or the main surgical/specialty hospital, main university, largest arena, $500 million north commuter parkway and bridges project, South Bridge plus 4 interchanges, etc. all partially funded by the province.

I don't agree this is a bias, but I also don't agree that there is any anti-Regina sentiment. I think the projects are pretty evenly divided based on need, cost/availability of funds. The South Bridge and interchanges were needed, just as I assume the new Regina highway and interchanges were needed and will serve the community and province for years to come.

To be fair, the main surgical/specialty hospital, main university, largest arena were in place before the Sask Party, and the north commuter parkway cost half the amount you stated.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by WoodlandCritter

I don't agree this is a bias, but I also don't agree that there is any anti-Regina sentiment. I think the projects are pretty evenly divided based on need, cost/availability of funds. The South Bridge and interchanges were needed, just as I assume the new Regina highway and interchanges were needed and will serve the community and province for years to come.

To be fair, the main surgical/specialty hospital, main university, largest arena were in place before the Sask Party, and the north commuter parkway cost half the amount you stated.

North Commuter/Bridges amount is the full P3 price over its life including financing and maintenance. This is an apples comparison to the Regina Bypass P3 price tag.

[WoodlandCritter]

Originally Posted by Stormer

North Commuter/Bridges amount is the full P3 price over its life including financing and maintenance. This is an apples comparison to the Regina Bypass P3 price tag.

Every project, public or private, has a lifetime price tag.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by riders78

Also most of the arenas in the list of renovated buildings have been demolished. The Auditorium in Buffalo was only used for 6 years after renovation.

Again, I think it's in everybody's best interest to be well informed and make decisions based on understanding true facts.

Out of the 5 arenas I outlined above, more than half are still in operation after having roofs raised.
Only the Buffalo Memorial Auditorium, which actually was used by the NHL Sabres for another quarter century after the roof was raised and San Antonio's Hemisfair building which operated for another 22 years after having it's roof raised for the NBA's Spurs. It seems though that NHL and NBA teams replace their arenas at a much higher frequency than other cities that have arenas though.

Allen County War Memorial Coliseum, Gallagher-Iba Arena, and Greensboro War Memorial Coliseum are all still in operation, decades after having their roofs raised.

originally posted by Arts
This is exactly my concern about spending $100M to renovate the current arena - it's not good value, but at the same time neither is building a new one downtown before it's needed... plus like SaskScraper mentioned above if not designed very thoughtfully it will be obsolete long before the budgeted lifespan (just like the current one).

My exact concern is that people are having wool pulled over their eyes, such as taking the advice from incorrect posters when trying to make sense of it all and in the end it could result in an arena decision, such as placement of a new arena on the city outskirts & not having the features or not meeting the needs of the entirety of a populous of a city & of a province.

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

Saskatoon isn't the only city currently planning how to renovate it's arena.
Key Center in Seattle is increasing its arena to NHL & NBA standards by not raising the roof but digging arena lower to add seats and increase facility functions.

https://seattle.curbed.com/2018/8/1/...echnique-video

I wouldn't recommend Saskatoon spending as much as Seattle to 'dig' a bigger arena, or Madison Sq Gardens $1 billion, 2013 expansion/reno since the cost is too prohibitive.
But raising the roof seems like the most logical way for Saskatoon to proceed.


Buffalo's Memorial Auditorium cost approximately $52.6 million in 2017 dollars to renovate, increase seating capacity from 10,449 to 15,858, added new upper level with stairways, escalators and upper exits, getting rid of exit tunnels from lower levels & a new scoreboard upgrade.

San Antonio's Hemisfair roof lift cost $4 million in 1970's USdollars and increased seating by 6,000.

Allen County War Memorial Coliseum In 2002, had an extensive $35 million renovation and expansion raising the roof by 41 feet (12 m), increasing seating by 2,500.

Gallagher-Iba Arena completed in 2000 cost $55 million, increasing seating capacity from 6,381 seats to its current 13,611 seats.

Greensboro War Memorial Coliseum's $45.7 million expansion project in 1990 added 7,000 new seats to final 23,200 seats & doubled the size of the adjoining Special Events Center.

I'd think SaskTel Centre's raising roof project would cost less than the above examples since it's raising the roof and re-enforcing the upper girders to bring up to current structural standards in the industry and isn't to necessarily add huge amount of more seats... but while they are at it they probably could add an extra couple thousand seats to make it the size of other arenas in North America that attract large scale shows.

Something I'm noticing with arena discussion with-in city of Saskatoon is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of informed decisions being made. How can anyone say that a new arena or a reno'd arena is the way to go until a break down in cost is illustrated for people to decide which direction to go.

The worst thing would be to make a rash decision to quickly construct a new arena that's built obsolete within a few years by not being informed enough about new concepts in arena architecture that could add features and cost efficiencies.

An example is 'inverted-bowl' arenas featuring enlarged concourses, cantilevered balconies & improved seating but are ~20% more economical to build, take up less space and more efficient to operate, and are the new evolution for live spectator experience.

http://theinvertedbowl.com/

Seattle is expected to spend north of $700 million on renovations of Key Arena.

Renovating is not the way to go in Saskatoon. Very few renovated arenas last long term. Renovating Sask Place or whatever it's called would be wellover $100 million in todays money. Better to save that for a new arena in the downtown core.

Raising the roof is not the major issue in Saskatoon. The city doesn't need larger capacity. 15,000 is more than enough. What it needs is more lobby/concourse space and luxury seats. This is what costs the money......

[alt_center]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Seattle is expected to spend north of $700 million on renovations of Key Arena.

Renovating is not the way to go in Saskatoon. Very few renovated arenas last long term. Renovating Sask Place or whatever it's called would be wellover $100 million in todays money. Better to save that for a new arena in the downtown core.

Raising the roof is not the major issue in Saskatoon. The city doesn't need larger capacity. 15,000 is more than enough. What it needs is more lobby/concourse space and luxury seats. This is what costs the money......

Agree, but IIRC the ceiling height was identified as one of the deficiencies of the current arena because it cannot accommodate the rigging used by many modern touring acts, not as it relates to potential seating expansion.

[bubba17]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Honestly, I don't know were you get this? The Sask Party is widely know to be anti-Regina, especially compared to the NDP.

Regina does not have a Children's Hospital or the main surgical/specialty hospital, main university, largest arena, $500 million north commuter parkway and bridges project, South Bridge plus 4 interchanges, etc. all partially funded by the province.

Also your referenced volume map shows Hwy 1 west in Regina as the busiest in the province.

Some valid points, but in order for the bridgees infrastructure to be made available, Regina would need a river to cross.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by WoodlandCritter

Every project, public or private, has a lifetime price tag.

Yes, except with a P3 the exact figure, usually over 30 years in known up front. That is why this larger number is often quoted in the media (e.g. $2B Regina Bypass).

[Echoes]

The structural frame of the Monarch project at 2nd and Queen is substantially up. That was fast.

[YXE]

Also in other news, Meridian has been meeting with potential clients to show them the current plans. They say it will be done in 2 years.

[The Bess]

Some more good news on available land available on parcel D

https://thestarphoenix.com/news/loca...t-10-5-million

[tenraptors]

Originally Posted by The Bess

Some more good news on available land available on parcel D

https://thestarphoenix.com/news/loca...t-10-5-million

I didn't realize that Morse Road was being recommended to be turned into its own parcel. Brilliant.

[WoodlandCritter]

I wonder how well Parcel D will sell if it is a condo tower (or two) on the site. The first 8 floors of any tower, facing the highway, will be quite undesirable. Having lived in many downtowns so far, renting a place in that area of a building is not enjoyable at all. But maybe that's just me. Maybe an office tower with residential on top? but how much more commercial is needed any time soon downtown?

[alt_center]

Originally Posted by WoodlandCritter

I wonder how well Parcel D will sell if it is a condo tower (or two) on the site. The first 8 floors of any tower, facing the highway, will be quite undesirable. Having lived in many downtowns so far, renting a place in that area of a building is not enjoyable at all. But maybe that's just me. Maybe an office tower with residential on top? but how much more commercial is needed any time soon downtown?

Perhaps they could do ground floor commercial, then a few levels of parking, then residential? Even one floor of office adds to the mixed usage. I think above grade parkades are OK as long as there is good street level interaction, and the parking tastefully done. As you say, condos on the lower levels could be a tough sell (I wonder what floors the unsold #1 RL condos are on? They did not make that mistake with UC Broadway... the condos start on the 4th floor I think.)

Anyway... I am quite optimistic we will see a nice proposal for Parcel D if UC Broadway sells as fast as #1RL did. Its a great location. In fact I bet there are some people who like looking out their window and seeing a steady stream of traffic below (the key word is below).

[WoodlandCritter]

Originally Posted by alt_center

Perhaps they could do ground floor commercial, then a few levels of parking, then residential? Even one floor of office adds to the mixed usage. I think above grade parkades are OK as long as there is good street level interaction, and the parking tastefully done. As you say, condos on the lower levels could be a tough sell (I wonder what floors the unsold #1 RL condos are on? They did not make that mistake with UC Broadway... the condos start on the 4th floor I think.)

Anyway... I am quite optimistic we will see a nice proposal for Parcel D if UC Broadway sells as fast as #1RL did. Its a great location. In fact I bet there are some people who like looking out their window and seeing a steady stream of traffic below (the key word is below).

I agree, there are ways to create alternatives, and i'm sure those options will be worked through. As for RL #1, I think they got away with lower level condos due to the low traffic volume on the street surrounding the building and the fact that the park/river are directly across that street.

[prairieguy]

It's funny you are mentioning view from lower level condos, as when I was at Persephone Theatre for the most recent play, there were a number of us commenting how we could look right into the condo units from the mezzanine of the theatre....

Unless a group of exhibitionist buy those units, they will have to have all those windows covered up most of the time!