MTS Centre ranks among 20 busiest in world

[newflyer]

The MTS Centre is a magnificant complex. There is no doubt of that... and it has been stated many of times that both the Oilers and Flames would love to have a facility of this quality .. plus a few thousand more seats. The building is accoustically supperior to more than 95% of such buildings, as it was designed for sound, as well as sport. Echo dampening and no right angles, or windows along the luxury boxes make for great sound quality.

When the previous Oilers owners and management took a tour of the MTS Centre a few year back they could not stop gushing over it on the radio. It is among the best in the world... and its in Winnipeg!!

So yes it is very easy to see why people from Calgary and Edmonton are so jealous of it. Go ahead and tell us how great it is... we know its true.

But if you are this jealous the MTS Centre ... wait until you see our new football stadium.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Originally Posted by newflyer

The MTS Centre is a magnificent complex. There is no doubt of that... and it has been stated many of times that both the Oilers and Flames would love to have a facility of this quality .. plus a few thousand more seats. The building is accoustically superior to more than 95% of such buildings, as it was designed for sound, as well as sport. Echo dampening and no right angles, or windows along the luxury boxes makes for great sound quality.

When the previous Oilers owners and management took a tour of the MTS Centre a few year back they could not stop gushing over it on the radio. It is among the best in the world... and it's in Winnipeg!!

So yes it is very easy to see why people from Calgary and Edmonton are so jealous of it. Go ahead and tell us how great it is... we know its true.

But if you are this jealous of the MTS Centre ... wait until you see our new football stadium.

I am sure that the MTS Centre is a wonderful venue. Given that it was built in 2004 it should be up there with other venues built of late around North America. I have seen it from the outside and it looks quite nice. I have not been inside for any events but maybe on my next visit.

It is also good to hear that the Oilers owners old and new and the city of Edmonton are looking at arenas around the continent before they build one of their own. It is always good to kick a few tires before building and one would hope they would incorporate all the good stuff they see.

That being said, I am not sure that anyone from Calgary or Edmonton truly is actually "jealous" of the MTS Centre. The MTS Centre only holds 15,015 people for hockey. Rumor has it that the seating capacity is one of the major stumbling blocks for Winnipeg to get another NHL franchise team.

In addition, I submit that the lack of the extra 2,000 or 3,000 seats may affect the type of concerts that would swing into Winnipeg. 3,000 seats may equate to an additional $300,000 of potential revenue at $100 a ticket and may mean the difference in getting some of the big name concerts. I think this is a problem with Rexall Place in Edmonton which is around 3,000 seats less than the Saddledome and why sometimes promoters will put a show in Calgary and not Edmonton. But then again, there are two Celine Dion concerts in Edmonton and none in Calgary so availability of the venue also sometimes comes into play.

All in all, I submit that most Winnipeg hockey fans and also hockey fans in Edmonton and Calgary that support NHL hockey in Canada would consider the building of the MTS Centre in its present state to be one of the biggest blunders made by the city of Winnipeg in the last ten years because it is just a bit too small to support an NHL franchise team. And while, maybe, if an NHL franchise falters in the deep south of the US, the size of the MTS Centre may not be an issue but only time will tell if a venue that seats 15,000 will be large enough to bring NHL hockey back to Winnipeg.

[trueviking]

the NHL not coming to winnipeg has nothing to do with the arena size....the revenue from 2000 300 level seats is negligible...it is mostly about perception (smallest market, smallest arena) that hurts....i will agree that the 4 extra rows that would have made up 2000 seats is a real shame.

there would be a million things to overcome to bring back the jets....that is a minor one.

i hope edmonton builds a beauty downtown...that would be awesome.

how realistic is that calgary will replace the saddledome?

[Pegger5]

MTS Centre seats just over 17K for most concerts. (check the website)

SaddleDome does not come close to getting same concerts as Winnipeg as you can NOT have centre stage concerts there.. The roof won't support it... for example. Timberlake concert...

[Boreal]

Kanye West and Justin Timberlake both just did 2 shows apiece in the same caldendar year. I would imagine that speaks volumes towards the MTS Centre's ability to draw top talent.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by DAVEinEDMONTON

In addition, I submit that the lack of the extra 2,000 or 3,000 seats may affect the type of concerts that would swing into Winnipeg. 3,000 seats may equate to an additional $300,000 of potential revenue at $100 a ticket and may mean the difference in getting some of the big name concerts. I think this is a problem with Rexall Place in Edmonton which is around 3,000 seats less than the Saddledome and why sometimes promoters will put a show in Calgary and not Edmonton. But then again, there are two Celine Dion concerts in Edmonton and none in Calgary so availability of the venue also sometimes comes into play.

The MTS Centre is hosting Celine Dion very soon... has hosted Kayne West twice , Elton John twice, Gwen Stephani, Justin Timberlake twice and Chistina Agulara among many others in the last year. I don't see any major tours missing Winnipeg. The MTS Centre has gained recognition as a great concernt venue... and the biggest acts want to play there. Let me asure you Winnipeg is the place to be if you want to see the biggest acts.

Both the Saddledome and the Reall Place have horrible sound qulaity. Those old school concrete echo chambers are very poor concert venues... and the bigtime acts are looking for quality venues.

I agree both Edmonton and Calgary need new areena complexes. I just warn you not to hold your breath... these things take alot of time and alot of political BS before they become possible. With the declining oil revenues I don't see Alberta rushing to major projects like that in the coming years... IMO.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Originally Posted by newflyer

The MTS Centre is hosting Celine Dion very soon... has hosted Kayne West twice , Elton John twice, Gwen Stephani, Justin Timberlake twice and Chistina Aguliera among many others in the last year. I don't see any major tours missing Winnipeg. The MTS Centre has gained recognition as a great concert venue... and the biggest acts want to play there. Let me assure you Winnipeg is the place to be if you want to see the biggest acts.

Both the Saddledome and the Rexall Place have horrible sound quality. Those old school concrete echo chambers are very poor concert venues... and the bigtime acts are looking for quality venues.

I agree both Edmonton and Calgary need new arena complexes. I just warn you not to hold your breath... these things take alot of time and alot of political BS before they become possible. With the declining oil revenues I don't see Alberta rushing to major projects like that in the coming years... IMO.

All the acts you listed also came to Edmonton so I am not really buying your "sound quality" argument...if it was such an issue then they would probably not even go on tour as most arenas would be in the same boat.

I do agree...low oil prices and the state of the world economy might put a damper on new arenas everywhere.

That being said, I have faith that Daryl Katz who owns the Oilers will get the job done. He has about 6 years until the lease on Rexall runs out giving him lots of time to build.

[shogged]

Originally Posted by newflyer

The MTS Centre is hosting Celine Dion very soon... has hosted Kayne West twice , Elton John twice, Gwen Stephani, Justin Timberlake twice and Chistina Agulara among many others in the last year. I don't see any major tours missing Winnipeg. The MTS Centre has gained recognition as a great concernt venue... and the biggest acts want to play there. Let me asure you Winnipeg is the place to be if you want to see the biggest acts.

Both the Saddledome and the Reall Place have horrible sound qulaity. Those old school concrete echo chambers are very poor concert venues... and the bigtime acts are looking for quality venues.

I agree both Edmonton and Calgary need new areena complexes. I just warn you not to hold your breath... these things take alot of time and alot of political BS before they become possible. With the declining oil revenues I don't see Alberta rushing to major projects like that in the coming years... IMO.

i'm sorry but I really don't think a good sounding venue is on the top priority of most major tours. I think #1 on their minds is "hey, how much money can we make?"


with that being said, i'm a huge fan of MTS centre. Great design, awesome location. I hope we get something like it here in Calgary

[trueviking]

^ a number of acts refused to play the old winnipeg arena because the acoustics were so bad...i do agree though, artists will go where the money is.

it begs the question, why didnt these same acts play the arena before...seating capacity was essentially the same...why all of a sudden does the MTS centre get every tour there is when a few years ago many would play fargo instead of here.

i guess the true north management group deserves much of the credit....and i think winnipeggers are willing to spend a lot more on tickets today that they used to...both because the economy is way better and because the venue is so much nicer to go to....

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by DAVEinEDMONTON

All in all, I submit that most Winnipeg hockey fans and also hockey fans in Edmonton and Calgary that support NHL hockey in Canada would consider the building of the MTS Centre in its present state to be one of the biggest blunders made by the city of Winnipeg in the last ten years because it is just a bit too small to support an NHL franchise team. And while, maybe, if an NHL franchise falters in the deep south of the US, the size of the MTS Centre may not be an issue but only time will tell if a venue that seats 15,000 will be large enough to bring NHL hockey back to Winnipeg.

This is simply incorrect.

One of the main problems that the NHL itself has recognized over the last few years is that it has too much capacity at its venues. Not all of them of course but as a general rule of thumb, hockey doesn't need a 20,000 seat arena in Tampa for example. Sure, you can fill the seats but given that you could also reduce the number of seats and simply charge that much more, 15,000 or 20,000...it makes no real difference.

Secondly, trying to lure an NHL team is something entirely different from actually landing one. Right now and for the foreseable future Winnipeg is not on the NHL's short list. The NHL figures that any city under a million people is too small for their brand of hockey. Well, so be it I suppose. We probably have more hockey fans here than does Tampa but the NHL isn't interested in simply appealing to people who are already hockey fans. The NHL is interested in making new fans of the sport. That's simply not going to happen in Winnipeg. In other words, there's no room for them to grow here. There's no room for them to grow in Quebec city either and that's one of the reasons that we both lost our teams at around the same time. They already dominate the Canadian market so there isn't necessarily any gain in it for the league to set up more franchises in this country. Yes, NHL is a sure thing in Canada but if a league must limit the total number of teams due to simple logistics, it makes more business sense to pursue expansion in larger , more potentially lucrative markets. Ergo, Phoenix gets our team (four to five times more potential fans) Denver gets Quebec's team (three to four times the potential) and even Minneapolis lost out to Dallas which has twice the number of people. The only reason that cities such as Edmonton , Calgary, and Ottawa have managed to survive is because they are high-growth cities with a lot of disposable income. Not the case in Winnipeg or Quebec city.

The point to all that was that it's only a blunder to have built the MTS with a capacity of 15,000 people if you actually think Winnipeg will ever get an NHL team again. It won't. Therefore, it would seem that the capacity is perfect.

[viperred88]

check this site out for more info about the MTS Centre and the dream of getting the nhl back in town.

http://jetsowner.com/index.htm


Rumor has it the mts centre can be expanded to 16, 000 seats and they would add a whole new row of press boxes is what Mark Chipman has stated; and i think some more low end private suites if I am not mistaken.

[thegreattait]

People just ignore the Trolls. If we keep responding to Markus then he gets the attention he wants. If we just let him make his comment and ignore it then all will be well and we don't have to have pages of city bashings.

Thank you the the other outsiders who made useful comments that were actually discussion worthy. Your commitment to actual discussion is appreciated.

Also I think that having a highly ranked facility with respect to attendance isn't necessarily a reflection on the city but on the venue and the management which promotes it. Vancouver for example has two large venues and several smaller ones. Vancouver gets as many shows to Winnipeg and in fact probably more then we do. However there events get spread out to different venues, some of which compete against one another. Where as in Winnipeg there is only a single venue suited for each type of concert or performance, and competition only comes into play for smaller events such as what might be held at the Burton cummings theatre or at the Centenial Concert Hall.

This has more to do about efficiency and promotion of a single complex as oppose to which city has the bigger concert schlonge. If you wanted to get into a competition of which city gets more concerts then you need a ranking that compares all the city venues together. Since this is not that ranking then I think a lot of the comments made here about "our city gets more concerts then your city" are pointless, since there isn't any information in these rankings to prove your point either for or against Winnipeg. If you want that kind of discussion then find those rankings and lets get a well informed concert bashing discussion going.

[sledhead35]

Originally Posted by bomberguy

And with three months remaining in 2008, which will include such shows as Neil Young (Thursday), two nights of Celine Dion (Oct. 27 and 28), Lenny Kravitz (Oct. 29), the Backstreet Boys (Nov. 12), and Carrie Underwood (Dec. 2), the likelihood of record numbers in 2008 are very good.

you forgot bobby d

[Prairie Guy]

Originally Posted by Spocket

The point to all that was that it's only a blunder to have built the MTS with a capacity of 15,000 people if you actually think Winnipeg will ever get an NHL team again. It won't. Therefore, it would seem that the capacity is perfect.

Spocket, I do agree with most of what you post about Winnipeg, and believe that in general you are a dedicated Winnipegger much as I am. But in terms of the NHL with your comment here, plus your stance on LRT in Winnipeg, I wholeheartedly disagree with your somewhat defeatest attitude. The NHL in the Southern US is dying; there will be a large restructuring of NHL salaries in the near future once the league and managers realize that the NHL is a minor sports league compared to the NFL, NBA and Baseball and that NHL players don't deserve the extreme high salaries they get now. Once that takes place, cities like Hamilton, Winnipeg and QC will be on the radar for the NHL instead of Tucson, Tulsa and San Diego. It's only a matter of time.

As for rapid transit, ripping out rail tracks, putting in a dedicated busway and then feeding the public bullshit lies like "were planning for LRT in the future" instead of using current infrastructure IS the biggest blunder the city has committed to. It's decisions like these that make my city sub-par to other cities in Canada, and I hope that we can find better suited politicians in the future who actually care about Winnipeg instead of morons who are only in power for the money.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by trueviking

how realistic is that calgary will replace the saddledome?

Ken King (Flames President) has said on record a number of times that they are currently looking at proposals and that the arena will remain on the Calgary Stampede grounds (most likely along Macleod Tr where the Big4 building is).

Rumour has it that they will also be putting the C-Train underground at the location to allow for better pedestrian flow.

[vid]

Pff, the acoustics in Thunder Bay's Auditorium are better.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by vid

Pff, the acoustics in Thunder Bay's Auditorium are better.

Yes, wood framing generally has better acoustical properties than steel.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Prairie Guy

Spocket, I do agree with most of what you post about Winnipeg, and believe that in general you are a dedicated Winnipegger much as I am. But in terms of the NHL with your comment here, plus your stance on LRT in Winnipeg, I wholeheartedly disagree with your somewhat defeatest attitude. The NHL in the Southern US is dying; there will be a large restructuring of NHL salaries in the near future once the league and managers realize that the NHL is a minor sports league compared to the NFL, NBA and Baseball and that NHL players don't deserve the extreme high salaries they get now. Once that takes place, cities like Hamilton, Winnipeg and QC will be on the radar for the NHL instead of Tucson, Tulsa and San Diego. It's only a matter of time.

As for rapid transit, ripping out rail tracks, putting in a dedicated busway and then feeding the public bullshit lies like "were planning for LRT in the future" instead of using current infrastructure IS the biggest blunder the city has committed to. It's decisions like these that make my city sub-par to other cities in Canada, and I hope that we can find better suited politicians in the future who actually care about Winnipeg instead of morons who are only in power for the money.

It has nothing to do with defeatism. It's simply reality. If something costs twenty dollars and you only have ten then it's not defeatism to say that you don't have enough money to make the purchase. Categorizing reality as either a defeatist or a "sky's the limit" situation is counter-productive at best.
Winnipeg might get an NHL team when the entire southern US portion of the league crumbles sure. Now, does that really sound like it's all that likely to happen ? Before Winnipeg gets a team , even in that scenario, virtually any major US city would be more appealing to the tall foreheads in the NHL. Seattle , Portland, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Hartford, Providence, Cincinatti, Cleveland, another in the Chicago area, etc....all of these places could support an NHL team. Given that the NHL is a business , it makes a lot more sense to look at any one of them first before awarding Winnipeg a team. I'm sorry if this strikes you as defeatism but to me, it's practically self-evident that they take precedence over Winnipeg when the list of expansion locales is drawn up.

As for LRT okay, call it defeatism again if you like but when it actually comes time to pay for it, where's the money ? Where's the demand ? BRT isn't shiny enough for some people ...okay, that's fine. That's what the pro-LRT argument boils down to in Winnipeg even if the proponents don't want to admit it. Again though, with all due respect, why is it defeatist to point out that we can't afford it and don't need it ? Doesn't it, therefore, make more sense to get what we need and can actually afford as opposed to "planning" for some time in the distant future ?

The MTS Center was built with reality in mind. Why the focus on accoustics ? Because it was recognized that that's where the profit was going to come from. They were right. They didn't build it for the NHL but what if they had ? They'd have that many more seats to fill and they'd be paying the extra to maintain them. What for ? If Winnipegers want an NHL team and one is awarded to us on condition that we expand our arena then I'm sure that that's precisely what we'll do. Or the die-hards will insist on a second arena. As True Viking pointed out, it's a minor obstacle in the grand scheme. Same goes for LRT really. If we get to the point where BRT simply can't hack it, you can rest assured that there'll be plenty of pressure put on politicians to do something about it. In either case for both subjects, these are simply not matters that Winnipeg has any need whatsoever to worry about based on reality. The NHL isn't breaking down our door and we're decades away from requiring LRT anywhere in this city.

[thegreattait]

"Switching costs"

Some decisions should not be made in incremental steps based on the outcome of the previous decision. What you describe is more of a "fly by the seat of your pants" kind of planning. The's not leadership, its not vision its not even good planning. When you deal with large sums of money as in cases like an arena or rapid transit infrustructure, you have to have longer term planning. This is due to the fact that incremental decision making will not allow certain decision to be made in the future without incurring major costs and difficulties. With Rapid transit, shutting down a BRT line that becomes seccussful so that an LRT line can be built overtop means you are duplicating costs, and it means you have to disrupt the service duing construction. Also by going with an LRT route, you also push the decision of future expansion of any rapid transit system to before more BRT focused because that infrustructure is already in place and it allows you to have one integrated system as oppose to two seperate individual systems.

With the arena the plans pushed NHL out of the decision, which depending which side of the fence you are on, is either a good thing, saved money and expense up front, or a bad thing, requiring added costs and disruptions latter when we do get an NHL team. Only time will tell, if we made the right decision and even then we might never know because then the what ifs come into play, what if we had an area that was bigger, would the NHL have considered us then. Would we have sold even more tickets to concerts because we had increased capacity, would the potential have offset the upfront costs.

This is why we need good leaders, good planers, and good people in public service, so that they can make good longterm decisions. In the case of the arena I think the cheeper option was better. With rapid transit however I think LRT is the better option when looking at the longterm planning of the city. LRT infrustructure has a much much longer lifespan compared to an arena, especially the underlying infrustructure, look at the Tube tunnels in London or New York, they still use that same infrustructure today. Yes the rails are different and they have been renovated but there is still lasting infrustructure that is paying dividends to its citizens for years to come.

Think of Winnipeg's fore fathers who built the gravel yards, the aquaduct, Winnipeg hydro, etc etc.... Those investments contributed to the development of the city for many many years and some still to this day. I think we need to shift a little more to that line of thinking in order to become a better city and to provide our citizens lasting benefits. Now I understand conditions were different at the turn of the centure when these projects were being constructed but the mentality of the decision makers is what is key to reflect upon. If those decision makers had looked at the data, and said we only need this much water for the next say even 5 years, the decision would have built a red river pumping and filtration systerm. Shorter term fix with a lower cost, but one that would not have provided the citizens lasting benefits for years to come.

Living here in Russia I have come to appreciate our excellent drinking water that we have back home in Winnipeg where if you are thirsty it is 100% safe to put your lips under a tap and drink, without having to boil the water first. This impact on the citizens daily lives is not something easily measured, when doing the planning, and sometime its takes leaders with a great Vision and sound and prudent planning in order to reap the greattest benefit without being wasteful, and in my opionion we are too focused on the immediate budget and could use a slight shift to the visionary side of things in order to stop being so short sighted.

While the Russians may not have invested in their water systems as we did at the turn of the century they did invest in their transportation infrustructure in the 60s and 70s 80s and continuing again today in the form of a Subway system that provides an exceptional level of service to its citizens. The subway system still acts as a catalyst for developments around the stations as newer and larger building fill in available spots or displace unnoteworthy structures. The system is efficient and has become a vital part of the city, allowing for wide sidewalks and livable communities. i walk down a street equivalent to portage with two lanes in either direction, this street is a major artery with large buildings on either side, and yet I wonder why it only hase 4 lanes, even though there is room for 8, the answer is simple, there is a subway line underneath that carriers thousands of people, taking pressure off the street system. Not only did it give those riding the subway an excellent fast and efficient mode of transportation, but it also gave car drivers a less busy street to drive on and most of all it gave pedestrians wide sidewalks with lots of store fronts and cafes and greenery .

This is a city that is as cold if not colder then Winnipeg (Novosibirsk is just west of Siberia), a city founded by the railway at a similar time to Winnipeg, a city that went through some booms in its early days followed by some harsh times and some long recovery periods. It is a city surrounded by agriculture, in the heart of the continent. It is also a city that is not the capital or the most noteworthy city in the country compared to Moscow or St.Petersburg. It is however a city that made some key investments in its infrustructure many years ago just as we did in the early days and has chosen once again that it want to commitment to making lasting improvements for its citizens.

Now I'm not saying its better or worse then Winnipeg, it is simply different and very similar at the same time. The point is that if leaders here can have longer term visions for their city then so too can the leaders in Winnipeg. All we need is the people to look for those qualities in our leaders and to support them when we find them.



OK that's enough of my late night early morning rant, I'm not sure how many of you are going to read all that but if you did my appologies for any grammer or spelling mistakes, I need some rest and don't feel like proofing it.

---- koles notes---- A shift to more long term planning is needed.

[Great Dane]

Originally Posted by newflyer

The MTS Centre is a magnificant complex. There is no doubt of that... and it has been stated many of times that both the Oilers and Flames would love to have a facility of this quality .. plus a few thousand more seats. The building is accoustically supperior to more than 95% of such buildings, as it was designed for sound, as well as sport. Echo dampening and no right angles, or windows along the luxury boxes make for great sound quality.

When the previous Oilers owners and management took a tour of the MTS Centre a few year back they could not stop gushing over it on the radio. It is among the best in the world... and its in Winnipeg!!

So yes it is very easy to see why people from Calgary and Edmonton are so jealous of it. Go ahead and tell us how great it is... we know its true.

But if you are this jealous the MTS Centre ... wait until you see our new football stadium.

I'm sorry, but jealous is something I'm not. Jealousy is for those who feel inadequate with what they have. I'm perfectly contempt with Rexall for a couple more years and Commonwealth for a long time to come.

Like I have already stated, I'm happy for Winnipeg and what it has. That said, while the MTS center is a nice arena (yes, I have been in it for a pre-season game) I hope Edmonton spends its hundreds of millions building an arena that is not only larger seating wise, but also one that has a lot more interior amenities. That's my opinion, it's what I personally think so don't get defensive.