Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't want to minimize the white elephant status of the Big O (which it clearly was for us) but there are lots of huge stadiums out there that probably aren't used much more even if they have a primary tenant - usually either an NFL team with 8-9 home dates or an NCAA team with 7-8 home dates.

Throw in the odd concert and a monster truck and tractor pull and that's about it for how much use the facility gets in a given year.

Especially if they're open air and in colder climates those stadiums might even get less use than the Big O, and their revenue from events might be comparable or even less.

The difference between a stadium used only for a single NFL or NCAA football team and the Big O is that the tenant in the former will pay the bills, or at least part of them. You have to wonder what the purpose is for the continued existence of a stadium that has no tenants and increasingly no raison d'etre, particularly when that stadium requires continuous injections of substantial amounts of money.

If I lived in Montreal I would probably be wondering what else the hundreds of millions of dollars in stadium renovations could have bought, along with all the money spent on the place this century since it became clear that the Big O was basically a white elephant that no other teams would be using.

Hey, maybe the RIO (or whatever it's called now) should buy the Alouettes and move them to the Big O. The purchase price and any losses would probably be chump change relative to their budget once you factor in capital costs, and it would at least give the Big O the respectability of having an actual user for the stadium.

[WhipperSnapper]

Football south of the border is a bad example. The NFL stadiums are blue whales for state governments. NCAA stadiums aren't much better for state, county and, local levels. Americans do love their football.

For whatever reason, demolition has an unbelievable large price tag so the Big O is a money pit whichever direction you go with it.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by esquire

Hey, maybe the RIO (or whatever it's called now) should buy the Alouettes and move them to the Big O. The purchase price and any losses would probably be chump change relative to their budget once you factor in capital costs, and it would at least give the Big O the respectability of having an actual user for the stadium.

They're already there, it's their training facility

[esquire]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Football south of the border is a bad example. The NFL stadiums are blue whales for state governments. NCAA stadiums aren't much better for state, county and, local levels. Americans do love their football.

For whatever reason, demolition has an unbelievable large price tag so the Big O is a money pit whichever direction you go with it.

...according the numbers put out by the RIO.

Needless to say, they seem more than a little bearish when it comes to demolishing the asset that would put their bureaucratic empire out of business. I wonder why that is?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by elly63

They're already there, it's their training facility

I know. The next logical (tongue in cheek) step is to outright buy the team and have them play their actual games in there instead of just using it to run practices as they currently do.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by esquire

...according the numbers put out by the RIO.

Needless to say, they seem more than a little bearish when it comes to demolishing the asset that would put their bureaucratic empire out of business. I wonder why that is?

ahhhh. for sure.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

The difference between a stadium used only for a single NFL or NCAA football team and the Big O is that the tenant in the former will pay the bills, or at least part of them. You have to wonder what the purpose is for the continued existence of a stadium that has no tenants and increasingly no raison d'etre, particularly when that stadium requires continuous injections of substantial amounts of money..

This was my line of arguing when the World Cup bids were announced and I was promptly chased away for suggesting that putting money into BMO (or literally any other stadium) would be a better use of funding than hundreds of millions of more dollars into a stadium which will revert back to its current state after the event.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

This was my line of arguing when the World Cup bids were announced and I was promptly chased away for suggesting that putting money into BMO (or literally any other stadium) would be a better use of funding than hundreds of millions of more dollars into a stadium which will revert back to its current state after the event.

A World Cup is an event big enough that it might actually justify capital improvements to the Big O. That along with the Summer Olympics stand pretty well alone in that regard, and we know that the Olympics probably aren't coming back to Montreal anytime soon.

But without those big events or a team of some sort, you have to wonder what the point of renovations are. The occasional large-scale stadium concert, Grey Cup and early season Impact game hardly seem worth it.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

A World Cup is an event big enough that it might actually justify capital improvements to the Big O. That along with the Summer Olympics stand pretty well alone in that regard, and we know that the Olympics probably aren't coming back to Montreal anytime soon.

But without those big events or a team of some sort, you have to wonder what the point of renovations are. The occasional large-scale stadium concert, Grey Cup and early season Impact game hardly seem worth it.

Capital improvements are one thing - the roof itself is costing hundreds of millions. That doesn't change anything else in the stadium aside from just the roof. The rest of the stadium sorely needs upgrading, and it doesn't help that the entire thing is a giant concrete slab. And it's multipurpose, so everything looks like they don't belong.

Without any reasonable tenant or event taking place on an annual basis it's effectively pointless to continue funding it at the levels people are proposing.

[esquire]

^ Yeah, fair enough. I figured that if you have to dump money into a World Cup venue capable of hosting the biggest games, you might as well tweak the facility that is already closest to that point. But I can understand the argument for going with the venue that is actually used by paying tenants instead.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

For whatever reason, demolition has an unbelievable large price tag so the Big O is a money pit whichever direction you go with it.

The Olympic Stadium: Fact and Fiction

"95% of Quebeceers are opposed to demolition.

Demolishing the stadium is not an option, given its unique post-tension, pre stressed concrete structure and its proximity to the Metro and residential areas.

The stadium cannot be demolished using dynamite. Like a giant Meccano toy set, the stadium would have to be taken apart piece by piece. This would take several years, cost some $700 million (some have disputed - elly) and require the disposal of tons of concrete...but most importantly it would deprive us of the largest stadium in the province."

[WhipperSnapper]

I'd guess demolition would be realistically somewhere in the $40 to $80 million range?
A new stadium $180 to $250 million?
temporary seating $10 to 15 million?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by elly63

The Olympic Stadium: Fact and Fiction

"95% of Quebeceers are opposed to demolition.

Demolishing the stadium is not an option, given its unique post-tension, pre stressed concrete structure and its proximity to the Metro and residential areas.

The stadium cannot be demolished using dynamite. Like a giant Meccano toy set, the stadium would have to be taken apart piece by piece. This would take several years, cost some $700 million (some have disputed - elly) and require the disposal of tons of concrete...but most importantly it would deprive us of the largest stadium in the province."

Again, consider the source.

"Hello, my name is Jacques. I am the still 11 years away from retirement, $250,000 a year Vice President of Facilities here at the Parc Olympique. I am going to tell you the six reasons why you and your loved ones will all get cancer if we demolish Olympic Stadium..."

[elly63]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I'd guess demolition would be realistically somewhere in the $40 to $80 million range?

See above. It might not be 700 million, but it will be one helluva project to get it outta there.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by elly63

The Olympic Stadium: Fact and Fiction

"95% of Quebeceers are opposed to demolition.

Demolishing the stadium is not an option, given its unique post-tension, pre stressed concrete structure and its proximity to the Metro and residential areas.

The stadium cannot be demolished using dynamite. Like a giant Meccano toy set, the stadium would have to be taken apart piece by piece. This would take several years, cost some $700 million (some have disputed - elly) and require the disposal of tons of concrete...but most importantly it would deprive us of the largest stadium in the province."

$700 million is ludicrous and the suggestion it costs this high because implosion isn't possible is taking advantage of a naive audience.

Tearing down a post tension structure conventionally is beyond dangerous . That's why we have implosion. It's not because its cheaper. It's because it safer. Buildings have been imploded around the world next to important and costly infrastructure. I don't buy that argument either.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by esquire

Again, consider the source.

"Hello, my name is Jacques. I am the still 11 years away from retirement, $250,000 a year Vice President of Facilities here at the Parc Olympique. I am going to tell you the six reasons why you and your loved ones will all get cancer if we demolish Olympic Stadium..."

I get your point but none of us are architects here, this thing was Taillibert's baby based on the Paris Parc des Princes stadium and him being some sort of concrete guru. It ain't comin' down easy.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

$700 million is ludicrous and the suggestion it costs this high because implosion isn't possible is taking advantage of a naive audience.

Tearing down a post tension structure conventionally is beyond dangerous . That's why we have implosion. It's not because its cheaper. It's because it safer. Buildings have been imploded around the world next to important and costly infrastructure. I don't buy that argument either.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, it's like abortion, there's no good answer, but I'm not buyin' your argument either.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by elly63

I get your point but none of us are architects here, this thing was Taillibert's baby based on the Paris Parc des Princes stadium and him being some sort of concrete guru. It ain't comin' down easy.

I don't doubt that, but all I'm saying is I would opt for a second opinion from someone who doesn't have a vested interest in getting the government to pony up ever more money to keep the place going.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't doubt that, but all I'm saying is I would opt for a second opinion from someone who doesn't have a vested interest in getting the government to pony up ever more money to keep the place going.

Facing the test of time: Retractable roof could give 'dreadful' Olympic Stadium a lively future in Montreal, committee says
The stadium needs to be recognized not as a money-draining blight, but as an important piece of Quebec’s cultural heritage, the report says
Graeme Hamilton The National Post December 13, 2012

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

The difference between a stadium used only for a single NFL or NCAA football team and the Big O is that the tenant in the former will pay the bills, or at least part of them. .

I would bet that in the case of more than a few stadiums in the U.S., the football teams that play there without owning the stadium themselves still play games there rent-free, or at least pay peanuts in terms of rent.

(I think WhipperSnapper may have been alluding to that in his post too.)