Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[elly63]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ As far as TD Place goes, the funny thing is that this was an easily avoidable problem. All they had to do was raise the south stand up by another 5 feet or so... sure it would have cost a little more, but I would imagine it couldn't have been more than a rounding error on the entire project budget.

Maybe they can take out the first row of seats (Start at 3:38)

• Video Link

[thurmas]

looks like TD Place renovation and new 67s arena plan will go ahead with Sutcliffe elected mayor of Ottawa last night but he did indicate an openness to changing the design.


https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ndidates-stand

At a Monday press conference on another matter, Sutcliffe said he believes Ottawa needs to continue investing in Lansdowne Park, which he described as a great destination used by people throughout the city.

“But I’ve also heard from a lot of people that they don’t like the current plan. So I’m ready to consult with the public on the design and the ideas behind it, get their input. And if the plan needs to be improved, then we’ll improve the plan.”

Asked about a column he penned in this newspaper in May, in which he argued Lansdowne 2.0 should be looked at as an investment rather than an as an expense that needs to wind up cost-neutral, Sutcliffe clarified that he thinks the city needs to recover as much revenue as it can.

“What I was writing about at that time, which I still believe in, is that I don’t think we should fall into the trap of always trying to make everything revenue neutral as a justification for something,” he said. “If there’s a good reason to invest in an area, we should invest in that area, and (Lansdowne) is an asset that belongs to the people of Ottawa. And I think in a lot of cases we have let our infrastructure dwindle without making the investments required.”

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by esquire

I find that shadows don't really make a huge difference when you're there in person, but they can make it really tough to see when you're watching on TV.

Regarding TD Place specifically, I still find it odd that they built seats so low to the field there. It used to be perfect with the relatively high first rows on both sides of the field (with the old south side stands). Then they built south side stands that went much lower, and on the north side they added some club seating in front of the main stand which, ironically, probably has some of the worst views in the entire joint because it's so low. I don't know why anyone interested in watching the events there would ever pay a premium for such lousy seats.

First time I went to TD Place I bought the field level seats. I kinda wondered why they were so cheap. When I sat down I immediately knew why and that they have both teams on the same side of the field you've got these massive players standing in front of you that you cannot see a bloody thing on the field.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

First time I went to TD Place I bought the field level seats. I kinda wondered why they were so cheap. When I sat down I immediately knew why and that they have both teams on the same side of the field you've got these massive players standing in front of you that you cannot see a bloody thing on the field.

Ha. On a related note, I was at the Brandt Centre in Regina earlier this season and I bought front row tickets to a Pats game. The seats were marked down and designated as "obstructed view"... but I wondered what kind of view obstruction there could be in the front row.

Well, when I got there, the front row seats were so low that the bottom of the boards were as high as my head when seated, and I'm over 6 feet tall. There was no chance for my wife and kids to see the game from there... you'd have to be Kristaps Porzingis to watch the game without straining yourself. What's the deal with that, Regina???

Luckily there were empty seats one row up so we just moved there

Moral of the story, when they say "obstructed view", you best believe it

[O-tacular]

I get the sense that negotiations for the new Flames arena are now going to get even more complicated and political. Is there nothing Danielle Smith won’t try to ruin?

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/premier-s...rena-1.6124256

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I get the sense that negotiations for the new Flames arena are now going to get even more complicated and political. Is there nothing Danielle Smith won’t try to ruin?

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/premier-s...rena-1.6124256

Best quote

"The province has absolutely no business being involved in a commercial transaction between a private group of billionaires and the City of Calgary," said Moshe Lander from Concordia University

"It's not just that it's one too many cooks, it's that it's an unwanted chef showing up at the door of the kitchen saying, 'I've been appointed to now come in and supervise your cooking.' It's wrong on so many different levels."

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

First time I went to TD Place I bought the field level seats. I kinda wondered why they were so cheap. When I sat down I immediately knew why and that they have both teams on the same side of the field you've got these massive players standing in front of you that you cannot see a bloody thing on the field.

Very disappointed they botched the job. This seems pretty basic. Hopefully, with a new North Side Stand, they can correct some of those glaring mistakes.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The lower glassy section surrounded by a plaza isn't bad, but the rest of it... If they're going with such a plain design, might as well build mixed-use buildings around it like Detroit's Little Cesar's or BC Place. Ottawa's new arena (if built) will have towers on the corners.





I think they have tunnels running under it connecting the south and north stands. Don't quote me on that though.

Parking garage is under the adjacent entertainment district, but no doubt they will build parking under the towers that will replace the Civic Centre.

I don't think the Canal is an issue for a few extra feet. Worth noting the parking garage is only one level, but that may just be about savings, not flood risks.

In any case, this will be a budget stadium, so sunken fields are probably not part of the plan. Too cheap to even put in an awning on the stands or engineering the proposed arena's green roof to handle live loads.

I still wonder why the new south side stands don't have more of a roof.

I am definitely a "north side sucks" (Ottawa people will know what this means) kind of guy but if I am buying tickets in advance of a predictable weather forecast, I always buy on the north side because I wouldn't want to be caught sitting in the cold rain for three hours on the south side. I'd also never buy season tickets on the south side for the same reason.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I still wonder why the new south side stands don't have more of a roof.

I am definitely a "north side sucks" (Ottawa people will know what this means) kind of guy but if I am buying tickets in advance of a predictable weather forecast, I always buy on the north side because I wouldn't want to be caught sitting in the cold rain for three hours on the south side. I'd also never buy season tickets on the south side for the same reason.

This is one of the best parts of IG Field... as much as the canopy was derided for inflating the construction bill, it brings a great level of comfort in that unless you are sitting in the handful of endzone seats, you never have to worry about getting rained on. My Blue Bomber seats are in the 8th row up from the sideline, and even if it's pouring rain on the field a few dozen feet in front of me, my seats are dry.

At the old stadium very few seats were protected that way... just the upper deck and the top few rows of seats on the lower deck. That was it. Getting drenched ruins the fun, at least for me.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I get the sense that negotiations for the new Flames arena are now going to get even more complicated and political. Is there nothing Danielle Smith won’t try to ruin?

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/premier-s...rena-1.6124256

This should simplify things in many ways for it will push the province to top things up.

I don't love the design, but would love to see the interior layout and circulation, for Rogers Place is less than ideal in multiple spots and really does separate the two bowls in a negative way for fans.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

This is one of the best parts of IG Field... as much as the canopy was derided for inflating the construction bill, it brings a great level of comfort in that unless you are sitting in the handful of endzone seats, you never have to worry about getting rained on. My Blue Bomber seats are in the 8th row up from the sideline, and even if it's pouring rain on the field a few dozen feet in front of me, my seats are dry.

At the old stadium very few seats were protected that way... just the upper deck and the top few rows of seats on the lower deck. That was it. Getting drenched ruins the fun, at least for me.

I'm not one who freaks out when he gets wet. I mean, I go out biking when it's lightly raining all the time.

I wouldn't even mind a 15-minute summer downpour because the water is warm and the sun comes out very quickly afterwards.

It's the cool October rain for hours on end when it's 6C that kills me.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

This should simplify things in many ways for it will push the province to top things up.

I don't love the design, but would love to see the interior layout and circulation, for Rogers Place is less than ideal in multiple spots and really does separate the two bowls in a negative way for fans.

See Wigs' quote from the article. If anything I see too many cooks/crooks in the kitchen and have even less faith a deal will be reached. She hasn't offered any money. Just a 'helping hand'. It's purely political and a cynical move to try and bribe Calgary voters come Election time. I also am suspicious of her ties to Murray Edwards and see them ganging up on the city.

Question: Will our officials even be allowed to speak with Rick McIver now that the UCP has decreed all councilors and staff including the mayor have to register as Lobbyists for every interaction with the province? Or will they now be considered on the same level as the billionaire Flames owners?

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Wigs

"The province has absolutely no business being involved in a commercial transaction between a private group of billionaires and the City of Calgary," said Moshe Lander from Concordia University

Why do these lazy writers always use the same guy as the de facto stadium expert in Canada. Go back and see some of the ridiculous things he said about the proposed Halifax stadium.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I still wonder why the new south side stands don't have more of a roof.

Maybe you can answer this for me. Wasn't the original design for the veil to include a fabric roof cover near the top of the veil? And does it? If, so does it provide any cover at all? It's very difficult to tell from any photograph.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by elly63

Maybe you can answer this for me. Wasn't the original design for the veil to include a fabric roof cover near the top of the veil? And does it? If, so does it provide any cover at all? It's very difficult to tell from any photograph.

Acajack might have more insight as someone who attends games regularly, but I don't remember ever seeing any proposal for a fabric cover over the South Side Stands, and can confirm that none exist.

Here's a closeup:

You may be thinking of the earlier renderings when the developer OSEG was trying to sell the idea of a redeveloped Lansdowne:


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...-park-1.841103


https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/doucet-sho...-plan-1.361844

Or an alternate proposal from a group who opposed the OSEG deal:


https://www.designcurial.com/news/la...pment-proposal

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Acajack might have more insight as someone who attends games regularly, but I don't remember ever seeing any proposal for a fabric cover over the South Side Stands, and can confirm that none exist.

I've never seen anything proposed to cover the seats on the south side. Perhaps in alternate bids but never in the official bid that was accepted, IIRC.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Acajack might have more insight as someone who attends games regularly, but I don't remember ever seeing any proposal for a fabric cover over the South Side Stands, and can confirm that none exist.

Here's a closeup:


https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-new...payers-3938423

You may be thinking of the earlier renderings when the developer OSEG was trying to sell the idea of a redeveloped Lansdowne:

[IMG]https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1...cape_960/image.[/IMG]
https://ottawacitizen.com/tag/lansdo...30400&from=350


https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/doucet-sho...-plan-1.361844

Or an alternate proposal from a group who opposed the OSEG deal:


https://www.designcurial.com/news/la...pment-proposal

I honestly can't recall.

What's there now barely covers the top rows of the south side stands.

When it rains it seems like (at least partly) covered concourses on the south side are filled with standees watching the game from there.

The old south side stands that were demolished had two decks with a roof that partially covered maybe half of the top deck.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I've never seen anything proposed to cover the seats on the south side. Perhaps in alternate bids but never in the official bid that was accepted, IIRC.

Took me a while to find a larger image that I could actually post, but see above. one of OSEG's earlier renderings showed proper coverage of at least the top tier of the South Stands, and a rebuild of the canopy over the North Stands (which instead, the original canopy was shortened due to structural issues).

[esquire]

Judging by those pictures, it looks like any roof coverage provided by the south side canopy is totally incidental, like maybe the absolute top few rows on either side of the press box.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Took me a while to find a larger image that I could actually post, but see above. one of OSEG's earlier renderings showed proper coverage of at least the top tier of the South Stands, and a rebuild of the canopy over the North Stands (which instead, the original canopy was shortened due to structural issues).

I recall being at a Fury match years ago in the rain and people complaining in the concourse that it was counterintuitive for the 'main' stand (south) being uncovered and used for those matches despite the fact that the unused stand (north) was covered and empty.

There are a number of oversights in the Lansdowne project but this seems to be one of the most glaring. Stadiums are moving from uncovered to covered, or to semi-domed in some instances, so for Ottawa to build a new stand with no covering whatsoever is unwise in today's environment. I don't recall seeing anything for a new North stand yet but if the same processes are taken as with the South then i'm not holding my breath.

Portland recently renovated their new main stand and it has sufficient covering, as one example: