Winnipeg - Of Interest

[P&M40BELOW]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Loving all the sporting events at campus these days. Basketball in particular has exploded in popularity with the Winnipeg youth this last decade so it should hopefully draw decent numbers. Now all they need to do is actually keep some of those damn restaurants at UC open past 6 on game days.

Who knows with all this momentum for sports in the area and the upcoming Southwood infill development I wouldn’t be surprised to even see the Jets move on down to campus once the team requires a new arena.

If you want to see in person the contrast between a downtown arena, and what it adds to your downtown vs the suburbs, just go to a Kings game and then a Ducks game. The Kings is a great experience. Lots of restaurants and bars for pre and post game. The Ducks is in the suburbs off a freeway and has nothing other than the game itself. The parking costs more than downtown LA because they know that they got you.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

If you wan to see in person the contrast between a downtown arena, and what it adds to you downtown vs the suburbs, just o to a Kings game and then a Ducks game. The Kings is a great experience. Lots of restaurants and bars for pre and post game. The Ducks is in the suburbs off a freeway and has nothing other than the game itself. The parking costs more than downtown LA because they know that they got you.

I definitely agree that Downtown would be the best place to have the arena. My ideal site would be that Earls lot on Main, or even at Higgins/Isabel should rail relocation finally occur. Hell, imagine putting a new arena on the Confusion Corner lot then things really get interesting.

However, comparing the Honda Center’s site context being next to a freeway and predominantly single-family housing with U of M which has rapid transit and has a more varied arrangement of housing is a bit unfair. In the U of M context the hypothetical arena could fit on the Q lot, or even be situated on the north side of the Stadium station.

Either way this probably won’t be a legitimate discussion until 2035-2040 but hypotheticals are fun.

[esquire]

^ Agreed that U of M is a much more urban location than an "arena by the freeway" design like in Ottawa or many American cities.

It will be interesting to see what happens once the "new arena" discussion inevitably begins in about a decade or so, and the process will probably take another 5-10 years after that. I presume it will eventually mean the end of CLC since Winnipeg can't carry two large arenas? So what does it mean for the site of the existing building? And True North Square? I wonder where the new one will go, somewhere near the current rink or somewhere else downtown, like on the Shaw Park site? Site options downtown are definitely more limited now than they were in 2000 when the True North Arena idea was first pitched.

I would imagine a downtown site would be the odds-on favourite for any new arena, but I could see non-downtown locations being on the table, especially when you factor in organizations that could bring something to the table like land or money.

[drew]

We (Winnipeg and MB) can't afford to replace large venues.

CLC should remain viable and operation for at least 50 to 100 years - barring some massive change in the requirements for the NHL or spectators down the road.

Just keep upgrading it as necessary.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

We (Winnipeg and MB) can't afford to replace large venues.

CLC should remain viable and operation for at least 50 to 100 years - barring some massive change in the requirements for the NHL or spectators down the road.

Just keep upgrading it as necessary.

I hope you're right. I mean, it's not as if Winnipeg has outgrown CLC. And it is modern enough that it has all the stuff that players and fans expect. It might not be as big and flashy as what exists elsewhere, but it has the basics covered.

It certainly has been upgraded significantly since it opened in 2004... in many ways, it is a much different and nicer arena than it was back then. Tens of millions of dollars in improvements have kept it pretty fresh.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by esquire

I hope you're right. I mean, it's not as if Winnipeg has outgrown CLC. And it is modern enough that it has all the stuff that players and fans expect. It might not be as big and flashy as what exists elsewhere, but it has the basics covered.

It certainly has been upgraded significantly since it opened in 2004... in many ways, it is a much different and nicer arena than it was back then. Tens of millions of dollars in improvements have kept it pretty fresh.

We'll know when True North wants a new rink when they stop keeping it fresh, like the Saddledome. Right now TNSE can't complain about us being the smallest rink in the league in terms of capacity anymore since they aren't filling the place night after night like in the early days of Jets 2.0

[pacman]

For me the best thing that could happen to CLC is that sports continue the trend towards lower capacities after the big 20,000 seat north american arena boom of 10-20 years ago. With virtual technology improving daily and people's home theatres and TV's getting better and better, I can foresee in-person sports becoming more and more highbrow with a bigger focus on club/premium seating with less people attending. We would actually be in a fantastic place with the size of the current arena. For me the biggest complaints were always the tight concourses and tight seating, but if we went down to 11 or 12 thousand capacity the concourses would be perfect size and you could widen the seats significantly improving the comfort massively.

IF all of these things happen, I could see a massive renovation to our current arena bringer it to the "new" standards instead of building brand new. Will really be interesting what the sports landscape looks like in in 15-20 years, might work out perfectly for Winnipeg.

[drew]

Originally Posted by WildCake

We'll know when True North wants a new rink when they stop keeping it fresh, like the Saddledome. Right now TNSE can't complain about us being the smallest rink in the league in terms of capacity anymore since they aren't filling the place night after night like in the early days of Jets 2.0

Speaking of the Saddledome - that is another facility that should 100% be retained and upgraded (with a reduction in capacity).

It is just crazy to me that facility is even being considered for replacement. It's an amazing building in an ideal location. Sink $200 million or so into it and keep it going for another 50 years.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

Speaking of the Saddledome - that is another facility that should 100% be retained and upgraded (with a reduction in capacity).

It is just crazy to me that facility is even being considered for replacement. It's an amazing building in an ideal location. Sink $200 million or so into it and keep it going for another 50 years.

Pretty much. The case for replacement there only works for the Flames owners if they don't have to pay for it, or at least not more than a token amount. i.e., the Edmonton formula.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by drew

We (Winnipeg and MB) can't afford to replace large venues.

CLC should remain viable and operation for at least 50 to 100 years - barring some massive change in the requirements for the NHL or spectators down the road.

Just keep upgrading it as necessary.

No arena has been used by a professional sports teams for 100 years in North America.

Even the grand arenas of yesteryear like the Montreal Forum, Boston Garden, Olympia, Pepsi Coliseum in Quebec City, Maple Leaf Gardens were not used by the primary tenants for a century or longer. There is no way that Canada Life Centre or whatever it will be called a few decades from now would serve as the Jets' home for another 80 years.

[P&M40BELOW]

The next arena IMO should be built where it was supposed to be built for Jets 1.0, namely on the site of the Goldeyes stadium.

[drew]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

No arena has been used by a professional sports teams for 100 years in North America.

Even the grand arenas of yesteryear like the Montreal Forum, Boston Garden, Olympia, Pepsi Coliseum in Quebec City, Maple Leaf Gardens were not used by the primary tenants for a century or longer. There is no way that Canada Life Centre or whatever it will be called a few decades from now would serve as the Jets' home for another 80 years.

Maple Leaf Gardens hosted the Leafs for 70+ years, same with the Forum and the Habs.

Madison Square Gardens was just extensively renovated and has been open for 54 years.

There is no reason at all, other than some need for a shiny new toy - that modern sports arena's need to be replaced on 30 or 40 year intervals. It's just wasteful of resources and public $$.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by drew

Maple Leaf Gardens hosted the Leafs for 70+ years, same with the Forum and the Habs.

Madison Square Gardens was just extensively renovated and has been open for 54 years.

There is no reason at all, other than some need for a shiny new toy - that modern sports arena's need to be replaced on 30 or 40 year intervals. It's just wasteful of resources and public $$.

Yes, but not 100 years like you were proposing. Madison Square Garden had a $1 billion renovation where everything was essentially rebuilt.

Canada Life Centre has some issues that can't really be dealt with through renovations given the small footprint of the arena.

- A lower bowl that seats 8,000 seats that are mostly 17 inches wide and really cramped....as opposed to most modern arenas that have well over 9,000 seats in the lower bowl that are 19 inches across and not cramped. This is where the money is made and there is an ever increasing emphasis on extracting more and more money from the high-end seats in the lower levels of the arena. If I was paying upwards of $300 per ticket, I damn well better be comfortable in my seat.

- Small narrow concourses with less than optimal points of sale for customers. This potentially means less revenue.

- Only 1000 club seats all behind the net and one club lounge. Most modern arenas have twice as many club seats and they are either located on their own separate level with large lounges and/or have club seats in the middle sections of the lower bowl between the blue lines with the club lounges located behind them.

- Loges are in an awkward spot hanging off the lower lip of the upper deck and there are many complaints from people that sit up there that their views are partially obstructed.

Will see how things go with the Jets attendance over the next decade, but I suspect there will be a push (starting quietly) for a new arena in the early 2030s which will become a full-blown roar as the decade progresses. It seems to take a decade plus for an new arena to built - from initial suggestions to public to actual completion of construction.

[drew]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Yes, but not 100 years like you were proposing.

Geez you guys. You are focused on 100 years. Read it carefully, I said 50 to 100 years.

Which is completely realistic.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by drew

Geez you guys. You are focused on 100 years. Read it carefully, I said 50 to 100 years.

Which is completely realistic.

well, there is a heck of a gap between 50 years and 100 years. Anyways, we will see how things go with the Jets for the next decade. I would bet there will be calls for a new arena in the 2030s when the arena is only 30 years old with a new arena being constructed by the time the current one is only 40 years old.

[Biff]

Just returned from LA, and my perspective of Winnipeg and it's homeless issues was altered slightly.

I understand that LA has about 20 million people and that the good weather year round lends it's self to an easier situation to be homeless in but my god. It was astonishing how much, how visible and how it was everywhere. Basically it was all over the place except in the most visible spots in Beverly Hills and Rodeo Dr areas.

Most main streets had tents on the sidewalks everywhere and under every freeway underpass.

They also take it to another level where a good portion that "have some money" are able to buy old RV's (think Winebego's or Breaking Bad). They line whole streets, covered in tarps and garbage. I had never seen anything like the impromptu street campgrounds.

The one difference I noticed was that we were never approached by any of the homeless, which I thought was strange. In Winnipeg I find them to be fairly aggressive in terms of panhandling.

LA was much grungier than I last remember it.

Over all it was a great trip. The games we saw were great. What a difference in perspective going from the Rose Bowl Stadium on Saturday night (100 years old) to Sofi Stadium on Sunday - arguably the newest most advanced stadium on the planet right now....atmosphere for the Rose Bowl game was better.

Direct flight was awesome. 3.5 hours flight time was perfect. Will likely go back next year for a weekend.

...traffic was a fuckin nightmare - everywhere, anytime.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Biff

The one difference I noticed was that we were never approached by any of the homeless, which I thought was strange. In Winnipeg I find them to be fairly aggressive in terms of panhandling.

.

That's because in LA even homeless people know there can be consequences for getting aggresive with the wrong person..... Unlike here where a person will feel perfectly comfortable lighting up a smoke in a crowded bus shelter and if anyone complains about they will be cussed out or even assualted. Seen it happen several times.

[esquire]

Interesting take, Biff. I'm heading to LA in March, it will be my first visit there in a decade. I remember being pleasantly surprised last time, only got caught in a couple of traffic snarls, ha. Curious to see how it has changed since then.

I've heard about the RV/van encampments in BC in places like Surrey, Burnaby and what not. I didn't know they were common in LA but it stands to reason...

[bomberjet]

Last time I was in LA was 2014. Traffic was ridiculous. I think it's always been that way. Didn't notice much of the homelessness but I also didnt really explore LA proper a lot.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Last time I was in LA was 2014. Traffic was ridiculous. I think it's always been that way. Didn't notice much of the homelessness but I also didnt really explore LA proper a lot.

When I was there in 2012 the only really nasty traffic jam I got caught in was heading on Wilshire to the 405 at rush hour... bad times. Pretty views, but man, to say were moving at a walking pace would be generous, ha. Although I did my best to avoid the freeways at rush hour.

The only place I also remember seeing an outsized number of homeless people was on skid row near Broadway in downtown LA.