Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Might be a difficult ask for public monies for a stadium they may not necessarily even need if they already have a larger stadium operating. If this were the case the business case would have to be good for Valour to move 14+ matchdays out of IGF to a smaller venue, and for governments to commit monies to a new stadium to use that isn't currently IGF. I don't know.

The main problem is that it's difficult to tell where CPL realistically is given that COVID dented most momentum the league had been building. We only really have one season of data to work off of for full seasons at normal capacity. In that season Valour drew reasonably well (averaging north of 5K, IIRC). Something 5K-7.5K would be reasonable. I think the new Rexdale stadium is 8K? That's likely the starting off point.

That's fair. Valour also got double-whammied by being an also-ran for their existence so far which put a serious damper on initial fan enthusiasm. If Valour can get back on track and draw in that range of 5-8 thousand fans a game then I think that would be enough to create decent fan atmosphere.

If they can get to the upper end of that range, around 8 thousand, then perhaps they could open seats on both sides of the field and make it feel a little less empty.

Oh boy, here comes JHikka...

Outside of the opening season IGF has only been sold out (for regular season games) against Saskatchewan. Otherwise crowds usually float around 25K-27K for Bombers matches. 33K is simply too large for the main tenant, IMO. It's a supply/demand issue when there's 7-10K tickets either available or unused for matches. Even an IGF at 30K would be more reasonable for the folks working ticket sales.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but with NFL teams these days downsizing their stadiums in the US it was likely a mistake to move to a higher-capacity IGF when they did. There was no way of knowing that a decade-plus ago, I guess.

COVID is the obvious asterisk here. 2022 will be a big indicator of where that league currently lies.

I suspect that if the Bombers and their partners had to do it all over again, they'd build smaller to save money. It's probably fair to say that shaving off a significant portion of the project cost by going with a reduced capacity would be appealing in hindsight.

But that said...

I think the Bombers were hindered by going into a horrendous multi-season tailspin that coincided with IG Field opening. This was at the same time that the NHL returned to Winnipeg and took a huge bite of the sports market. Things have rebounded since then, and the Bombers have been drawing better than before. I suspect that will continue to improve as COVID restrictions likely won't be a factor in 2022.

Had the stadium been built with 40,000+ seats then I'd agree that it was seriously overbuilt, but with 33,000 seats you could say it's maybe 10% overbuilt at most, and the difference is so marginal at that point that I don't think it makes a material impact in terms of fan experience. Cutting out 3,000 seats probably wouldn't have made a major difference on the venue's bottom line cost either.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by esquire

I suspect that if the Bombers and their partners had to do it all over again, they'd build smaller to save money. It's probably fair to say that shaving off a significant portion of the project cost by going with a reduced capacity would be appealing in hindsight.

That roof cost them 40 million IIRC. I believe the initial cost of the stadium was supposed to be 180 or 190 million. Ended up costing 210 million. The roof seems to me to be a big chunk of change in the total cost of the stadium. Just to clarify I don't think too much of the additional cost overrun was because of the roof structure itself even though it was delayed. I believe they added additional amenities and there were repair issues to the stadium as well.

Just as an aside, speaking of roofs, in the very early information on the new Regina stadium to be built, there was a line that said a retractable roof could be cheaper than a permanent roof (enclosing the whole structure). It came to pass they figured the Regina roof would add 100 million to the cost so it was dropped. Any experts out there know why a retractable roof would be cheaper?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

That's fair. Valour also got double-whammied by being an also-ran for their existence so far which put a serious damper on initial fan enthusiasm. If Valour can get back on track and draw in that range of 5-8 thousand fans a game then I think that would be enough to create decent fan atmosphere.

If they can get to the upper end of that range, around 8 thousand, then perhaps they could open seats on both sides of the field and make it feel a little less empty.

My experience from Fury matches at Lansdowne was that

sub-5K was dismal
5K-7K mostly in one lower half was fine
8K+ with fans on both sides of the pitch was great

I imagine IGF is similar.

I don't think they ever got big crowds (8K+) like that outside of Canadian Championship matches against Impact/TFC, though. I'd be curious to see if Atletico matches are any different.

Originally Posted by esquire

I suspect that if the Bombers and their partners had to do it all over again, they'd build smaller to save money. It's probably fair to say that shaving off a significant portion of the project cost by going with a reduced capacity would be appealing in hindsight.

My argument is mostly from a ticket selling perspective. Supply/demand in a smaller venue is easier to control than in a larger venue with more free seats. It's why a lot of newer MLS stadiums are being under-built (~20K) with potential for future expansion if demand warrants, and why newer NFL stadiums are downsizing, although the latter has more to do with shifting towards more premium seating options as opposed to strictly cutting back on general seating.

Originally Posted by esquire

I think the Bombers were hindered by going into a horrendous multi-season tailspin that coincided with IG Field opening. This was at the same time that the NHL returned to Winnipeg and took a huge bite of the sports market. Things have rebounded since then, and the Bombers have been drawing better than before. I suspect that will continue to improve as COVID restrictions likely won't be a factor in 2022.

I'd be curious to see if any growth on the Valour side would affect the Jets or Bombers, however minimal that would be. You mention the Bombers being affected by the Jets arriving but I think it's also fair to say that they've see-sawed back again in the past few years with Jets tickets softening in demand. Perhaps there's a balancing act in the market b/w CFL and NHL.

Originally Posted by esquire

Had the stadium been built with 40,000+ seats then I'd agree that it was seriously overbuilt, but with 33,000 seats you could say it's maybe 10% overbuilt at most, and the difference is so marginal at that point that I don't think it makes a material impact in terms of fan experience. Cutting out 3,000 seats probably wouldn't have made a major difference on the venue's bottom line cost either.

Again, i'm speaking less about fan experience and more about the FO being able to squeeze as much money out of fans customers as possible when demand is higher and supply is lower in a smaller capacity stadium.

[esquire]

Thinking it over a bit more, I'd put the measuring stick for "clearly overbuilt" as when a venue has seating levels or even sections that are never, or rarely ever used by the main tenants.

So by that measure something like BC Place is overbuilt as the main tenants seldom ever use the entire upper bowl. By contrast, there is never a time when an entire seating section at IG Field is empty for football.

But even then some stadiums like BC Place and Commonwealth which have levels/sections tarped off may still have an important civic function for other special events that do require the additional seating capacity.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I'd be curious to see if any growth on the Valour side would affect the Jets or Bombers. You mention the Bombers being affected by the Jets arriving but I think it's also fair to say that they've see-sawed back again in the past few years with Jets tickets softening in demand. Perhaps there's a balancing act in the market b/w CFL and NHL.

Again, i'm speaking less about fan experience and more about the FO being able to squeeze as much money out of fans customers as possible when demand is higher and demand is lower in a smaller capacity stadium.

From that perspective then yes, there is no question that IG Field is overbuilt. Blue Bomber tickets are fairly reasonably priced in my view, pricing is very moderate compared to the NHL and even among other CFL teams. I'm sure that's partly a function of having a lot of seats to hustle, which ends up in discounts. I pay $65 for a ticket but taking my kid costs just a little under $20. So $83 for two tickets in the lower deck, near the goal line... I don't know the exact pricing there, but that will cost a hell of a lot more in Saskatchewan. Or you can get a family pack for $95 which includes 4 tickets in the upper deck, snacks/drinks and a parking pass. Very cheap, and as a fan I appreciate that. But yes, I'm sure the Bombers would be OK with having 25,000 seats to sell at a higher average ticket price and with less effort.

It's interesting to see how Jets tickets prices have fallen off a cliff over the last couple of seasons. From 2011-2015 you had to pay a steep premium for any resale market tickets. It softened a bit by 2015, and I'm sure the arrival of the Manitoba Moose had at least something to do with that. Then pretty well from this season on it has been possible to buy resale tickets for significantly less than face value. Great for cheapskate fans like me, but yeah, tough for the team trying to convince people to buy season tickets. For a while the Jets had it good though, demand vastly outstripped supply and they were maximizing the value of every seat.

As to the earlier question, it's tough to say. There is a lot of crossover among the team fanbases in Winnipeg... it is typical for someone to support all of the local teams. So most of the Valour fans I know are also Jets and Bomber fans. However, I've noticed certain demographics at Valour matches that I don't see at other events in large numbers... lots of immigrant families including those speaking languages other than English, for instance. To that extent I think Valour has tapped into people who weren't regularly buying tickets to watch the other local teams. I guess if Valour really booms to the point where they start drawing 20,000 fans a game or more then it's inevitable some of that will come at the expense of the other existing teams. But to this point I haven't seen that happening in a major way. I think that much as the Goldeyes got themselves off the ground to some extent due to excitement over the Blue Jays in the early 90s, I think Valour could really benefit from World Cup excitement this fall, although I suppose the timing is unfortunate for them given that the World Cup won't happen until after the CPL season is finished (or close to finished). I guess they can ride the hype train into 2023, especially if Canada exceeds expectations.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by esquire

Thinking it over a bit more, I'd put the measuring stick for "clearly overbuilt" as when a venue has seating levels or even sections that are never, or rarely ever used by the main tenants.

So by that measure something like BC Place is overbuilt as the main tenants seldom ever use the entire upper bowl. By contrast, there is never a time when an entire seating section at IG Field is empty for football.

But even then some stadiums like BC Place and Commonwealth which have levels/sections tarped off may still have an important civic function for other special events that do require the additional seating capacity.

But in those 2 examples, those stadiums were built decades ago, and with other purposes in mind. It also wasn't like the CFL teams did poorly in attendance in those facilities back then either. I wouldn't call them overbuilt solely based on the main tenants dramatically lower attendance many years after the places were built.

As for IGF, I don't think it's really easily expandable for Grey Cups and large events like that either. Whereas the old stadium was easy to stick temporary bleachers at an end to boost Grey Cup attendance (like Tim Hortons Field or BMO do). So I think they wanted to build some of that capacity into the new place, even if they might have thought it was a bit too large on a regular basis.

[thurmas]

Ig field can fit temporary 7000 seats at each end zone. They only did one endzone in 2015 grey cup as tickets sales were very slow because the Bombers were so terrible that year.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

But in those 2 examples, those stadiums were built decades ago, and with other purposes in mind. It also wasn't like the CFL teams did poorly in attendance in those facilities back then either. I wouldn't call them overbuilt solely based on the main tenants dramatically lower attendance many years after the places were built.

As for IGF, I don't think it's really easily expandable for Grey Cups and large events like that either. Whereas the old stadium was easy to stick temporary bleachers at an end to boost Grey Cup attendance (like Tim Hortons Field or BMO do). So I think they wanted to build some of that capacity into the new place, even if they might have thought it was a bit too large on a regular basis.

The Eskimos were able to fill Commonwealth regularly for the first several seasons there but by current standards it's overbuilt, even taking into account the ebbs and flows of attendance over the years, a 40,000 seat stadium would be more than enough for Edmonton as they rarely break that mark anymore. The stadium's seating capacity is lower than it used to be though, down to about 55,000 from the 61,000 or so it was at 20 years ago. The reduced capacity came when the original seating was replaced with newer, wider seats.

BC Place was always arguably overbuilt for its actual tenants, though. The Lions and Whitecaps sold out some games over the years but that was always the exception and those teams have, in the grand scheme of things, fairly rarely managed to average crowds more than half of capacity. So on that basis it's overbuilt. Although I suppose you could argue it isn't given that the intention at one point was to use it to draw a MLB team to Vancouver.

Originally Posted by thurmas

Ig field can fit temporary 7000 seats at each end zone. They only did one endzone in 2015 grey cup as tickets sales were very slow because the Bombers were so terrible that year.

I think it's only about 3,500 extra in each end zone, so 7,000 total. As I recall they wanted to be able to lift capacity to the 40,000 mark for major events.

I guess that is one reason that outdoor stadiums seem to be overbuilt more than arenas, there is a desire to be able to handle one-off big events like large concerts and "special" sporting events like championship games/tournaments, things like the Heritage Classic and what not.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by elly63

That roof cost them 40 million IIRC. I believe the initial cost of the stadium was supposed to be 180 or 190 million. Ended up costing 210 million. The roof seems to me to be a big chunk of change in the total cost of the stadium. Just to clarify I don't think too much of the additional cost overrun was because of the roof structure itself even though it was delayed. I believe they added additional amenities and there were repair issues to the stadium as well.

Just as an aside, speaking of roofs, in the very early information on the new Regina stadium to be built, there was a line that said a retractable roof could be cheaper than a permanent roof (enclosing the whole structure). It came to pass they figured the Regina roof would add 100 million to the cost so it was dropped. Any experts out there know why a retractable roof would be cheaper?

Retractable roofs are more expensive than permanent roofs. The owners of the Minnesota Vikings were musing over a retractable roof stadium for the new sports facility, but opted for a permanent roof when the estimates for the retractable roof came in at nearly $200 million more than a dome.

The final tally for IG Field is $240 million with additional costs added in after the opening - redoing the main concourse, adding glass to the pressbox, adding in the additional loge seating, expanding the party section at the north end of the stadium, among other things.

The roof was around $20 million to build. Winnipeggers are grateful for this even if most games are not affected by rainfall.

I've heard from a few people who attended the Grey Cup in Hamilton, both online and in-person that Tim Hortons Field in Hamilton definitely feels like a stadium that is $100 million cheaper than IG Field. Besides having no roof, the stadium was built at ground level, leading to many windswept games (like the Grey Cup) cheapening the game day experience ...which is similar to the old antiquated stadiums of yesteryear in places like Winnipeg (Canad Inns Stadium) and Regina (Taylor Field). Even after 8 years, the stadium already has a somewhat rundown appearance...in the concessions, washrooms...perhaps the maintenance isn't up to par?

Then there is the outdated seating arrangement (just like the old stadiums in Winnipeg, Regina and Ottawa)...wide open endzones don't particularly look good..like something out of the 50s and of course, bring about those previously mentioned issues with the elements taking hold, like the wind.

Anyways, this is what I have been hearing so I'm grateful we have the stadium we do compared to other city's who are not as fortunate.

[esquire]

^ I definitely appreciate the coverage provided by the roof. Unless you are sitting in the lower bowl end zone, you really don't have to worry about the rain which is nice as a fan. I was never a fan of having to wear a poncho while getting rained on.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by esquire

Thinking it over a bit more, I'd put the measuring stick for "clearly overbuilt" as when a venue has seating levels or even sections that are never, or rarely ever used by the main tenants.

So by that measure something like BC Place is overbuilt as the main tenants seldom ever use the entire upper bowl. By contrast, there is never a time when an entire seating section at IG Field is empty for football.

But even then some stadiums like BC Place and Commonwealth which have levels/sections tarped off may still have an important civic function for other special events that do require the additional seating capacity.

Yes, saying IG field is overbuilt makes about much sense as saying BMO Field is overbuilt, because most of the time the Reds have 5-7,000 empty seats for their matches.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Ig field can fit temporary 7000 seats at each end zone. They only did one endzone in 2015 grey cup as tickets sales were very slow because the Bombers were so terrible that year.

There was never a clear indication that the Bombers were going to expand the other endzone during the 2015 Grey Cup regardless of ticket sales. Questions about the capabilities of the facility to do so....

[elly63]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Retractable roofs are more expensive than permanent roofs.

Stadium Concept Review: A Summary Report (Slide 21)

University of Phoenix Dome, 63,000 seats, expandable to 72,000 seats built in 3 years for ~$400M USD (stadium only) with a retractable roof (that was less expensive then a fixed roof system).

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

The roof was around $20 million to build. Winnipeggers are grateful for this even if most games are not affected by rainfall.

But the roof also added approximately $35 million to the cost and was the central factor in a year-long delay in opening the facility.

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Then there is the outdated seating arrangement (just like the old stadiums in Winnipeg, Regina and Ottawa)...wide open endzones don't particularly look good..like something out of the 50s and of course, bring about those previously mentioned issues with the elements taking hold, like the wind.

That's not quite right.

One of the design features of the new Hamilton facility that has received the most attention is social areas located behind each zone, places where fans are expected to congregate and watch the game in an atmosphere that's been likened to a sports bar.

"We visited a number of stadiums and arenas across North America to gather best practices in new venues. This includes facilities that were larger in capacity and had far greater construction budgets relative to what was going to be delivered in Hamilton. However, we felt that great ideas rooted in enhancing the live viewing experience were transferable and could be customized to the needs of our local market, venue and construction budget. For example, we ultimately implemented the principle of two concepts from Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas. The end zone patio at Tim Hortons Field is comparable in theme to the common areas in the end zones at Cowboys Stadium."

They've also hired a number of consultants to advise them, including Jim Cima, who has been heavily involved in the construction of pro stadiums and arenas in Philadelphia, New Jersey and Minnesota among several others.'s been likened to a sports bar.

• Video Link

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by thurmas

The Oakland a's ballpark deal in Oakland is very close to collapsing now. They are extremely close to relocating to las Vegas now. With that said if the rays cannot get their ballpark situation sorted there could be a lot of moving parts to mlb relocation and with expansion likely. Not sure how Bronfman wants to play this once the dust settles for montreal.

With Las Vegas already having the NHL and NFL, it's going to be interesting to see if they can support an MLB team, potential expansion NBA team, and a potential expansion MLS team without cannibalizing each other's fanbases. Either way, having the Athletics stadium situation resolved gets the MLB closer to expansion mode.

At this point it's really hard to tell if the Rays will stay in the area or leave for Montreal, especially after Bronfman's opinion of the Montreal market maybe not being able to support a team full-time. I hope Montreal ends up with a team at the end of this, but I'm starting to think that it might get skipped over for Nashville or Charlotte instead.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

I've heard from a few people who attended the Grey Cup in Hamilton, both online and in-person that Tim Hortons Field in Hamilton definitely feels like a stadium that is $100 million cheaper than IG Field. Besides having no roof, the stadium was built at ground level, leading to many windswept games (like the Grey Cup) cheapening the game day experience ...which is similar to the old antiquated stadiums of yesteryear in places like Winnipeg (Canad Inns Stadium) and Regina (Taylor Field). Even after 8 years, the stadium already has a somewhat rundown appearance...in the concessions, washrooms...perhaps the maintenance isn't up to par?

Then there is the outdated seating arrangement (just like the old stadiums in Winnipeg, Regina and Ottawa)...wide open endzones don't particularly look good..like something out of the 50s and of course, bring about those previously mentioned issues with the elements taking hold, like the wind.

Anyways, this is what I have been hearing so I'm grateful we have the stadium we do compared to other city's who are not as fortunate.

Lol, maybe attend a game a THF before spewing all that? It's not run down at all other than a bit of rusting starting, but nothing is shabby or broken. It still feels like a new stadium to me.

Who cares about what "looks good", when all the seats are between the goal lines? It's giving priority to the people actually there, not armchair architects a thousand miles away.

I just have to LOL at all the wind comments - what, should every game be played in a dome? Weather is part of the game, both teams need to deal with equally and it makes every game unique.

Sure, a roof would be nice, but given the circumstances surrounding its construction I'm happy we have a stadium at all. I can dress warm and dry when I need to.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

There was never a clear indication that the Bombers were going to expand the other endzone during the 2015 Grey Cup regardless of ticket sales. Questions about the capabilities of the facility to do so....

I do not recall any such issue. The south end zone was able to accommodate extra seating and there is no obvious reason why the north end zone couldn't have handled the same arrangement.

As with the 1998 Grey Cup, the 2015 Grey Cup was exceptionally poorly timed in terms of local ticket sales because it was clear the Bombers were at a low ebb and wouldn't be a contender that year. Unlike with the 1991 and 2006 Grey Cup when the Bombers were good (or at least decent in the latter case), ticket sales struggled in 98 and 15. So as a result they never publicly contemplated expanding the stadium to its full capacity. TBH they could just as easily not have bothered with the extra south end zone seats.

[Acajack]

I don't think I have mentioned this before but I really like how the architecture of the Winnipeg and Regina stadiums make them feel like "big-time" stadiums in spite of them being appropriately-sized for the CFL.

When I watch games there there is almost a "trompe-l'oeil" that gives me the impression they're in the same league as much larger venues in the US or Europe.

They were very skillfully designed.

(And it's not just the bowl effect, though that helps of course.)

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't think I have mentioned this before but I really like how the architecture of the Winnipeg and Regina stadiums make them feel like "big-time" stadiums in spite of them being appropriately-sized for the CFL.

When I watch games there there is almost a "trompe-l'oeil" that gives me the impression they're in the same league as much larger venues in the US or Europe.

They were very skillfully designed.

(And it's not just the bowl effect, though that helps of course.)

I would agree, they do feel bigger than 33,000 seat stadiums. Certainly in the case of IG Field and I'd imagine that Mosaic is the same, when it's full or mostly full, it definitely gives you a sense of grandeur... noise certainly bounces around the place too.

For what it's worth, with the wider seating used these days and larger ingress/egress, etc., I'd say that both venues would have been closer to 40,000 seats had they been built in the 70s according to the standards of the day. They are still fairly big structures.

[thurmas]

They kinda feel like mini versions of the eagles and patriots stadiums when close to capacity.

[craner]

I always likened IGF to smaller version of the Seahawks stadium.