Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Do you have any links showing this? I can only find roof discussion when looking it up on google?

Not sure if you can read French, but these articles cover the roof, concessions, seating, lighting, bathrooms, sound system, etc.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle...upe-monde-fifa

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/g...0-millions.php

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wave46

The Skydome has several obstacles against its replacement.

It basically has the best spot in the city for it - aside from the Port Lands, there's not tons of undeveloped land in downtown Toronto. So, if they want to redevelop it, they've got the expense of tearing it down first. Then you have to decide how to coordinate that with the team too.

Rogers got it for a song (IIRC $25 million, maybe?) and any serious stadium proposal would likely cost at least hundreds of millions of dollars. Even with the most generous of government support, none would line up to give Rogers a blank cheque. So, Rogers would be on the hook for hundreds of millions, at least.

The last one might be that Skydome isn't really that bad. It doesn't have the newest features of ball stadiums (I don't know why a stadium needs a fish tank, but hey, whatever floats your boat), but it has lots of revenue-generating boxes (which tends to be a big hangup for owners with old stadiums) and is pleasant enough to enjoy a game in, rain, shine or snow.

I can't imagine that a new Rogers-owned stadium would get anything beyond the most token form of government support. It's hard to imagine one of Canada's most loathed corporate villains getting hundreds of millions of public dollars to replace the stadium they basically got for pennies on the dollar in the first place.

So I guess the question is this: is Skydome bad enough from a business standpoint that it justifies Rogers going out and spending the better part of a billion dollars to build a new venue?

I know we're used to the idea of baseball stadiums being demolished after 30 years, but those 1960s/70s models didn't offer much in the way of club seats, skyboxes, restaurants and other such amenities. Skydome has all of that stuff already, so it's not like a new venue would allow Rogers to suddenly start tapping into revenue streams that they can't currently access. I just don't see what it is about Skydome that makes it no longer viable as a ballpark.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wave46

That's because it's the cheapest option that lets Montreal keep a stadium. My understanding is that the roof is in such a state that it will need significant repair regardless of what they do.

Which makes sense, when looking at the other options, which are:

1. Tear it down and don't replace it. Which involves spending money and getting nothing out of it except some land.

2. Tear it down and replace it with a new stadium without a tenant. That's the most expensive solution and the silliest IMO.

With this option, Montreal keeps a large venue operating for the few times a year they need it. It's the least bad option.

How much does the Big O get used? A few days a year?

The sunk cost fallacy comes to mind here. But that said, all of the choices are bad and very expensive. I can see the appeal of a city like Montreal wanting to maintain a stadium that it can use for occasional large scale events, but man, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do that (the roof will be quarter of a billion alone) when there isn't even a tenant seems like a tough pill to swallow.

Has there ever been a stadium anywhere in the world that has been as financially catastrophic as the Big O? I love the architecture of the place but in terms of its effects on public finances it is an absolute cancer.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

The sunk cost fallacy comes to mind here. But that said, all of the choices are bad and very expensive. I can see the appeal of a city like Montreal wanting to maintain a stadium that it can use for occasional large scale events, but man, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do that (the roof will be quarter of a billion alone) when there isn't even a tenant seems like a tough pill to swallow.

Has there ever been a stadium anywhere in the world that has been as financially catastrophic as the Big O? I love the architecture of the place but in terms of its effects on public finances it is an absolute cancer.

If it's any consolation it was mostly paid for by Quebec smokers via a special levy that was only lifted a couple of years ago.

That said, as a boondoggle and white elephant it's hard to match, but there are other extravagant stadiums that are little used all over the world.

In many countries you have a large "national" stadium which is not always used intensively, or may be used by the national team(s) for sporadic but well-attended matches plus as the home for a local club that can only fill part of the cavernous space.

Still with this, if you look at huge stadiums like Wembley or Twickenham in London they are not particularly busy, nor is the Stade de France just outside Paris.

They may be busier than the Big O these days but not incredibly so.

Also, if you look at the Big O's overall usage in its 43-year existence it likely compares favourably to those stadiums above, as it was home to the Expos for 27 years with 81 home dates a year, plus home to various football teams for about 20 years (Alouettes, Concordes, Machine) and soccer clubs for a total of about 5 years.

I doubt most NFL stadiums (that are not shared with a soccer team or a college football team) can boast as many dates as the Big O. Thinking of places like the Buffalo Bills stadium for example.

The Big O also hosts indoor events like boat and home shows, provincial track and field championships, raves and concerts, etc.

[Coldrsx]

Great shot of Rogers Place and our ICE District.


https://twitter.com/kmoorephotos/sta...25932465221632
@kmoorephotos

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not sure if you can read French, but these articles cover the roof, concessions, seating, lighting, bathrooms, sound system, etc.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle...upe-monde-fifa

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/g...0-millions.php

Thank you my Andrew Scheer French only goes so far.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by osmo

Skydome isn't going to be torn down in our lifetimes the heritage aspect and the expense will prohibit it. A major redevelopment would use the shell and roof and build internally from that.

Skydome is fine and with vision and lots of moment it can be back to being a world

I don't expect to see it destroyed either. However, the adaptive reuse of the shell would be prohibitively expensive. It's not an attractive building either. The property as developable land has the potential to be worth in excess of $150 million and demo should come in much less.

The price tag of 700 million to demo the Big O posted here numerous times are make believe from those that support renovation.

[Acajack]

OK so Montreal wants to host 3-4 FIFA World Cup games.

I wonder what the economic benefits of that will be? Apparently Grand Prix weekend brings in just under 100 million dollars. About half the attendees are from outside Quebec.

I'd estimate that each WC game will be as big or perhaps bigger than the Grand Prix. And I'd also estimate the percentage of attendees who will be from outside Quebec will be considerably higher than 50%.

So there is that to take into account as well, plus they get a revamped stadium that's worthy of a city of Montreal's stature as a legacy infrastructure.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

I just don't see what it is about Skydome that makes it no longer viable as a ballpark.

Nothing.

It was just conceived as a multipurpose stadium (remember: this project was pitched to the province of Ontario as a home for both the Blue Jays and the Argos) and the day of the multipurpose stadium is gone in favour of dedicated facilities. So, it has some compromises for that.

That, and the crowd who wants a 'shiny new thing' all the time. Atlanta is notorious for thinking that its sports facilities are ready to fall over after 15 years.

A new stadium won't really boost the Jays' fortunes. Either winning more or being out of the AL East will do way more than that to fill the seats.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wave46

That, and the crowd who wants a 'shiny new thing' all the time.

That is really what it seems to be all about, isn't it? If you have a shiny new stadium that is the place to be, it makes the job of all those Blue Jays account executives a whole lot easier for at least a few years.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

The sunk cost fallacy comes to mind here. But that said, all of the choices are bad and very expensive. I can see the appeal of a city like Montreal wanting to maintain a stadium that it can use for occasional large scale events, but man, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do that (the roof will be quarter of a billion alone) when there isn't even a tenant seems like a tough pill to swallow.

Has there ever been a stadium anywhere in the world that has been as financially catastrophic as the Big O? I love the architecture of the place but in terms of its effects on public finances it is an absolute cancer.

Large stadiums in general do not cover their costs very well. I can think of a handful of ones that have the usage required to defray their costs.

In the case of multisport ones, they did a better job simply due to the fact that you could make baseball and football work in the same facility (or Aussie rules footfall and cricket).

With the dedicated sport ones now being built, the economic case weakens further. Maybe Yankee Stadium or whatever can justify the prices required to offset the costs, but in general, large stadiums are poorly used relative to their costs.

The Big O is pretty bad though. If we defray the costs of the new roof and improvements over another 40-50 years of light use, maybe the case looks better?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

Large stadiums in general do not cover their costs very well. I can think of a handful of ones that have the usage required to defray their costs.

In the case of multisport ones, they did a better job simply due to the fact that you could make baseball and football work in the same facility (or Aussie rules footfall and cricket).

With the dedicated sport ones now being built, the economic case weakens further. Maybe Yankee Stadium or whatever can justify the prices required to offset the costs, but in general, large stadiums are poorly used relative to their costs.

The Big O is pretty bad though. If we defray the costs of the new roof and improvements over another 40-50 years of light use, maybe the case looks better?

I covered this in a post above.

It's probably not significantly worse in this respect than any number of NFL stadiums that have only ever had an NFL club as a tenant.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

That is really what it seems to be all about, isn't it? If you have a shiny new stadium that is the place to be, it makes the job of all those Blue Jays account executives a whole lot easier for at least a few years.

Maybe.

However, Rogers isn't likely to get another sweetheart deal like they did with Skydome. So, they have to balance that part of the equation too - 10 years after the place is built and the crowds have thinned because you sacrificed the payroll of your team to pay for the 'shiny new thing', do you really come out ahead?

Rogers made hay when the sun shone on the Blue Jays in 2015 and 2016 in their paid-for stadium (paid for by mostly somebody else).

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I covered this in a post above.

It's probably not significantly worse in this respect than any number of NFL stadiums that have only ever had an NFL club as a tenant.

Oops. Probably should read the whole thread before I start replying.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

Oops. Probably should read the whole thread before I start replying.

Just the Expos' 27 years at the Big O represents over 2000 times the stadium was used. They had some sucky years attendance-wise but the average number of people in the stadium over all those years was probably in the 15-20,000 range.

[Acajack]

I would say that your average NFL stadium will probably get used around 500 times during a 40-year life cycle.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Just the Expos' 27 years at the Big O represents over 2000 times the stadium was used. They had some sucky years attendance-wise but the average number of people in the stadium over all those years was probably in the 15-20,000 range.

So you can say that the Big O was better than the worst-case scenarios like Atlanta where the Braves played at Turner Field for something like 20 years after the Olympics, but that isn't saying much...especially when you consider the $770 million construction cost.

Contrast with Minneapolis which paid $68 million to build the Metrodome and ended up getting over 25 years of MLB and NCAA use and over 30 years of NFL use out of it.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wave46

Large stadiums in general do not cover their costs very well. I can think of a handful of ones that have the usage required to defray their costs.

In the case of multisport ones, they did a better job simply due to the fact that you could make baseball and football work in the same facility (or Aussie rules footfall and cricket).

With the dedicated sport ones now being built, the economic case weakens further. Maybe Yankee Stadium or whatever can justify the prices required to offset the costs, but in general, large stadiums are poorly used relative to their costs.

The Big O is pretty bad though. If we defray the costs of the new roof and improvements over another 40-50 years of light use, maybe the case looks better?

I can understand why sports owners wanted to persuade fans that multipurpose stadiums were terrible (and they succeeded in a big way, to their tremendous financial benefit), but it's an economic tragedy when you consider how much public money has been poured into sport-specific venues over the last 25 years.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

So you can say that the Big O was better than the worst-case scenarios like Atlanta where the Braves played at Turner Field for something like 20 years after the Olympics, but that isn't saying much...especially when you consider the $770 million construction cost.

Contrast with Minneapolis which paid $68 million to build the Metrodome and ended up getting over 25 years of MLB and NCAA use and over 30 years of NFL use out of it.

That 68 million isn't in 2019 dollars, right?

[esquire]

^ I presume those aren't 2019 dollars, I pulled the numbers off of Wikipedia. Even if you factor in the exchange rate then, it's still a massive difference.