Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63
I think this statement was disproven, depending, I suppose, on how someone defines "most" or "utilitarian".
I know many love the views and iconic feel of Molson Stadium in Montreal, they would have to after being successful for so many years on old style bench seating.
Go to any soccer forum and see the reaction you get from Torontonians regarding BMO. They don't think it's "utilitarian"
And I would hardly call the Alaskan yellow cedar veil on Ottawa's TD Place "utilitarian". Usually "utilitarian" stuff doesn't win urban design awards.
If you want some comparisons IGF, was intended to come in at 190 million. I think they later spent an additional 10 million on ribbon lighting and so forth and there were some construction delays due to winds and the impressive roof. So for 210 million? they got a stadium with 10k more seats than proposed for Halifax and a roof that I believe cost 30 million. Subtract those costs for extra seating and roof and it gives some idea of what may be possible.
|
There are currently 8 active stadiums, 3 are good to okay on the exterior aesthetics. We're not talking about the seating or field or amenities, I'm talking purely about 360 degree exteror aesthetics (TD Place looks okay from one direction, the rest not so much), so yes 'most'.
Halifax, assuming it's awarded a franchise, will be the second smallest market (Regina is smaller, but lets face it, there are probably far more football fans per capita), and probably the most risk averse when it comes to budget. This usually does not lend itself to investing in things like aesthetics.
I get that you're a big fan and booster, but if you're going to be perfectly honest... design-wise CFL stadiums are rarely anything to write home about. They're functional, but that's it. I'm just worried that if Halifax builds a stadium, it's going to be no-frills. That's fine from a functional standpoint, but if that's the case, I don't want it on the waterfront where it'll be highly visible.
Threaded Mode