Investors Group Field | Winnipeg

[Alva360]

Originally Posted by Greco Roman

I am very horny for the potential high rise condos, as they would be a much needed addition to the Skyline.

you got issues man........

However.... I agree, they would add to our skyline.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by Alva360

you got issues man........

You do realize I'm joking around when saying that right? Comments like this are made all the time on this forum. Please don't ruin my happy moment

[Alva360]

No worries, you can continue enjoying your happy moment......

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

CFL regulations require a north/south orientations for stadiums. That's the only location it will fit into there.

not sure who told you that, but i dont think the CFL has much say in the matter....besides, hamilton, ottawa, regina have east/west stadia....and almost calgary....

nice article rob....although i never thought i would agree with the policy alternatives guy more than you...as an aside, wrigley field draws more than 3 million visitors per year...our stadium is in the 300 000 range...and wrigley is in a very dense urban neighbourhood in a very large city....your dream that our stadium will create that is not a likely reality...the city grew around wrigley despite it being there, not because it was there.

i have no problem giving 80 million dollars to asper to build a stadium...and i 100% beleive that the riverfront in point douglas is the next area that needs to be looked at for regeneration of the city core....i just do not think that the two mix....a stadium is a neighbourhood killer, not builder.

all the things in this plan that everyone loves, the boardwalk, the condo towers, the commercial strips with shops and restaurants are all not included in his plan....he shows renderings of them, but asper is hoping those things spawn from the creation of a football stadium....he is not builidng them.

look closely....none of those things are even shown in his plan...the orange buildings are either existing structures or new buildings surrounded with parking like kenaston and mcgillivray....the renderings do not even correspond with the plan, (even the stadiums are different) so it is clear they are not included in his proposal...they are dreams for some future generation to build.

it is my hope that asper gets his stadium and the city starts to focus on this property as a key piece of urban redevelopment.....proper redevelopment, like a mixed use neighbouhood...condominiums, a dock, commerce.....a stadium will not attract them...only good planning will....naturally extending waterfront into point douglas is key, but truncating it with an out of scale development will not allow that natural flow....it is more likely that the condo towers and rapid transit lines that everyone loves here, will spring up if the area is developed as an extension of what is already happening on waterfront....a stadium is not a catalyst of condo towers....there is no residential around any of our other stadia.

he should build his hotel and water park in point douglas at the end of waterfront and then build his stadium at polo park, where he doesnt have to worry about millions of dollars for infrastructure and property aquisition....i dont see that the two need each other in any way....

[pegcity]

The back and forth winking was kinda creepy.

[The Jabroni]

Tell me about it.

[viperred88]

I agree with you TV that the real catalist for building a better downtown is having more people living downtown and a stadium won't do but if built with mix usage built onto the stadium it won't be such an eyesore. To me if he had attached commercial and residential to the stadium it would surely disguise it not being a stadium that way the area in and around the stadium will be bustling. Add some mix use buildings around the stadium lot you have the remedy you have been looking for.

As for the gold plan that center venture tabled last year they said they would like to build parkades. I would they would build them so that don't look like parkades with mix use from the ground floor and up. So perhaps that should be part of the plan. The parkades should be displaced all over downtown imo. With free transit from pick up to stadium as they already do if you have your bomber ticket.

I however still thnk a new convention centre should be part of the stadium. I wonder he said hotels would be built if that is indication that would mean there would be more than a waterpark there. Have the stadium built in such a way that it allows for a retractable roof to be added much latter.

land assembly for this stadium might kill the stadium so perhaps it would be best to build right accross the convention centre.

But still say revitalization of point douglas and its riverfront for residential property is still key in building up downtown.

Originally Posted by trueviking

i have no problem giving 80 million dollars to asper to build a stadium...and i 100% beleive that the riverfront in point douglas is the next area that needs to be looked at for regeneration of the city core....i just do not think that the two mix....a stadium is a neighbourhood killer, not builder.

all the things in this plan that everyone loves, the boardwalk, the condo towers, the commercial strips with shops and restaurants are all not included in his plan....he shows renderings of them, but asper is hoping those things spawn from the creation of a football stadium....he is not builidng them.

look closely....none of those things are even shown in his plan...the orange buildings are either existing structures or new buildings surrounded with parking like kenaston and mcgillivray....the renderings do not even correspond with the plan, so it is clear they are not included in his proposal...they are dreams for some future generation to build.

it is my hope that asper gets his stadium and the city starts to focus on this property as a key piece of urban redevelopment.....proper redevelopment, like a mixed use neighbouhood...condominiums, a dock, commerce.....a stadium will not attract them...only good planning will....naturally extending waterfront into point douglas is key, but truncating it with an out of scale development will not allow that natural flow....it is more likely that the condo towers and rapid transit lines that everyone loves here, will spring up if the area is developed as an extension of what is already happening on waterfront....a stadium is not a catalyst of condo towers....there is no residential around any of our other stadia.

he should build his hotel and water park in point douglas at the end of waterfront and then build his stadium at polo park....i dont see that the two need each other in any way....

[viperred88]

You know what Leo and Asper got to work together on this project and not against in order for this project to go forward. Leo seems ticked for beeing excluded.

[Alva360]

Originally Posted by pegcity

The back and forth winking was kinda creepy.

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!! I never even realized that....... that is funny!

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by trueviking

says on the web site that he only wants 40 million now...so, where is the rest of the money coming from?...is he paying the other 110 for the stadium and 70 for the waterpark?...what about the land and the huge infrastructure investment it would take?.....seems like there is something he isnt telling us....too bad he had to cancel the 20 million dollar portage and main building...seems like money is no object anymore.

Creswin is very well financed ... that has never been in doubt.

The Portage and Main building failed, but becuase of a lack of money, it failed because of a lack of tenants (ie: weak demand for highend office space).

The funding close to 300 million in private funding when this project is complete will be partially aided by the retail development Creswin will be constructing at Polo Park.

If this development goes through it will see significant increase in land values in Point Douglas, and will also draw many more developments in Exchange and St.B. Sam Katz has to be recognized for his hard work, as stated by Doer.

The parking issue will be similar to that of the MTS centre, where fans will primarily be forced to use the lots in the exchange and walk to and from the game, with new bars and restaurants dotting Waterfront Drive.

Most of the parking at the site will be reserved for the large water park, hotel and commercial buildings.

[newflyer]

ADDING A WATER PARK

Businessman David Asper's plan to transform South Point Douglas includes a year-round water park on the bank of the Red River.

It would be designed by the same team who created water parks at Disney World, West Edmonton Mall and Niagara Falls.

It will feature a retractable roof, closed in winter and open in summer.

A wave pool will be the main attraction, surrounded by a "lazy river" swimmers can drift around on in inflatable tubes and rafts.

It will also include water slides and hot tubs and water cannons. It will be built next to a new hotel and be able to hold more than 1,000 people.

If approved it will be the second indoor water park in the city.

bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca bartley.kives@freepress.mb.ca

[j.online]

While I'm not against the proposal, I'm not 100% for it either. I think there are too many unknowns at this point to make a fair judgment of it.

I do find it surprising that 2 seemingly obvious questions aren't being asked:
1. If federal funding is dependent on urban renewal now, is this the best piece of land that needs renewal? Canada Packers anyone (or anywhere in the east)?
2. The planning dept was working on a development plan for Point D. What was in the report? Why 'shelve' it as the Freeps is reporting? There must have been something good/useful in it. Why not try to integrate the 2 plans to get the best of both worlds?

One thing is for sure though: Asper's boardwalk renderings are completely fictitious at this point as none of it is shown anywhere in the site plan. Even the stadium in the renderings doesn't match up with the one in the site plan: there's no room for the posts that hold up the partial covering. Think I'll have to agree that a bait & switch is coming...

oh yeah, and anyone notice the naked kids in the one of the waterpark renderings? How european of them. I'm half expecting a letter to the editor from a soccer mom asking for a retraction & apologize for the indecency.

[viperred88]

Originally Posted by j.online

2. The planning dept was working on a development plan for Point D. What was in the report? Why 'shelve' it as the Freeps is reporting? There must have been something good/useful in it. Why not try to integrate the 2 plans to get the best of both worlds?

One thing is for sure though: Asper's boardwalk renderings are completely fictitious at this point as none of it is shown anywhere in the site plan. Even the stadium in the renderings doesn't match up with the one in the site plan: there's no room for the posts that hold up the partial covering. Think I'll have to agree that a bait & switch is coming...

I agree I would like to see the city planners plans as well and work them both in there.

I noticed as well the boardwalk rendering do not match up with the site plan. Besides the river would flood it. The mix use buildings will have to be built higher up .

[viperred88]

Art, history and football
All of them could come together in Point Douglas
Robert Galston

winnipeg free press

In a 1966 issue of the Manitoba Historical Society's Transactions magazine, Red River historian Anne Matheson Henderson wrote of a stretch of Winnipeg's riverfront all but forgotten by the city around it. In light of the flurry of public renewal projects happening at the time, Matheson Henderson made a modest suggestion.

"Is it too much to hope that... there may be a driveway along the Red River from the Forks to Point Douglas, with perhaps a small park at either end?"

More than 40 years later, I sat among a dozen or so fellow Point Douglas residents in the small confines of the residents' committee offices at Main and Euclid to talk with David Asper about a plan for one possible "small park" in Point Douglas -- a new stadium for the Blue Bombers. (As it happens, the granddaughter of Matheson Henderson was in attendance.)

From just north of where Fort Douglas was built near the foot of present-day Galt Avenue in 1812, the south side of Point Douglas is perhaps more ignored today than it was in 1966. The ideas Asper shared with residents are big and ambitious, and go far beyond simply building a stadium. By the end of the meeting, most residents seemed excited by the possibilities:

Area warehouses -- boarded up since time immemorial -- restored as eateries, offices and residences; vacant weed lots filled in with mixed-use buildings and townhouses; the ability to walk along the Red River without tripping over rusted shopping carts; the ability to walk along Higgins Avenue without fainting from sensory deprivation.

Lurking in the back of my mind, however, was the image of a hulking stadium that on game day draws 30,000 fans, most of whom, in spite of the flowery notion of "sustainability," and the less flowery reality of $1.36 per litre gas prices, will come to games by car.

When I asked Asper for successful examples of this type of development, he offered Milwaukee's Historic Third Ward and Toronto's Distillery District, former manufacturing districts that have recently been transformed into a bustling mix of shops, galleries and residences.

What they don't have, he conceded, is a stadium.

In many cities, new sports facilities have been built in depressed and ignored urban areas that stay depressed and ignored for years after, and the only development engendered is more surface parking lots. They have often been less about adding to what's good and useful in an area, and more about wiping away what is perceived to be bad there. The blight is removed, but what then?

Asper's plan could work if it relies on the better characteristics of the neighbourhood -- the river, and what's left of its historic buildings, and the strength of the residents.

This could work for the football team, which is seeking to revamp the fan experience. There exists in Point Douglas the chance to add that urban dynamism and old-time feel found in the vicinity of Chicago's Wrigley Field or Boston's Fenway Park -- immensely popular destinations (which happen to enjoy a conspicuous lack of parking). A good number of the Point's historic warehouses could be incorporated into the scheme.

Right now, the people that live on the south Point, tucked away in tidy little enclaves on unknown leafy streets, love where they live. While they do not have millions of dollars in government funding, they have something far more essential to renewing urban areas: their actual presence there, a vested interest in their investment (however modest), and their quality of life. Many are artists, and add invaluable "cultural capital" to the area. All the tri-level funding in the world could never begin to revitalize the neighbourhood without them.

Save for hotdog vendors, business would not come to Point Douglas on account of a football stadium alone, but many different kinds would come on account of a stronger residential population of all incomes in a more interesting and beautiful Point Douglas.

While Mayor Sam Katz has regularly expressed his support for Asper's plan, city council is slow to remove the antiquated manufacturing zoning that blankets the south Point and prohibits commercial or residential development there. Removing this zoning designation is the simplest way the city can ensure Asper's plan succeeds.

If done right, a stadium could be a piece of Point Douglas's ongoing success, and the land downriver from ancient Fort Douglas could be the place where art, history, and CFL football meet.


Robert Galston is a lifelong Blue Bomber fan who lives in Point Douglas

[viperred88]

Stadium benefits more fantasy than fact
:By Jesse Hajer

winnipeg free press

Print Article E-mail Article David Asper and Sam Katz seem to have finally convinced Vic Toews, the senior Manitoba Tory MP, that a new football stadium is something that the federal government should be investing in. Toews was recently quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press as saying that the project "is something to be excited about," citing the "urban renewal" aspects of the new proposal to justify his change of heart. Although nothing official has been announced, it appears that Premier Gary Doer and the provincial government are also onside with the project.

The latest proposal by Asper calls for a $150- million stadium and asks for $25 million from the provincial government and $15 million from the federal government. In exchange, Asper would gain ownership of the now community-owned team and the right to purchase the existing stadium site. A key selling point of the stadium proposal is Asper's commitment to develop retail facilities and a "world-class" resort facility, along with an indoor water park.

However, it is unclear to what extent the above estimates include the infrastructure costs required to make room for the facilities and divert existing traffic flows. Asper and Katz have suggested that major traffic infrastructure construction would be required to make the proposed Point Douglas site workable, such as a new connection between the Louise Bridge and the Disraeli Freeway and the elevation or relocation of Higgins Avenue.

Although detailed information on the project is scarce, given the cost estimates of similar projects being considered for Winnipeg, it is not unrealistic to expect such costs to be in the $50- million to $80-million range, just to relocate Higgins Avenue. Asper's proposal also references a $400-million public-private partnership redevelopment of Waterfront Drive and proposes the city be responsible for assembling the land for the project -- another potentially costly endeavour. All this should be a serious concern for Winnipeggers, who are currently facing a significant infrastructure deficit, a projected city operating deficit of $93 million over the next two years, and a mayor who has committed to repeal the business tax, one of the city's main sources of revenue.

Federal and provincial government support for the project appears to be based on the project's claimed ability to generate "urban renewal." Urban redevelopment is a worthy goal, particularly in Winnipeg, which suffers from low downtown residential rates and significant urban sprawl problems due to poorly planned development. However, it is questionable whether spending millions of public dollars on a new stadium will renew the area in which it is located.

Building new professional sports facilities with public money to revitalize urban centres is not a new strategy. Those in favour of public funding for such projects argue that the positive economic spinoffs and new development that occur around the new facilities benefit all community members, therefore the government should financially contribute to the projects.

Unfortunately, research shows little evidence that new sports facilities generate any significant economic benefits beyond the initial construction project. Money that is spent at these new facilities generally comes at the expense of other entertainment options in a city, resulting in little or no net increase in jobs or economic activity after being built. Despite developers' claims, large arenas and stadiums have consistently failed to generate any meaningful sort of urban revitalization. Studies of the two best-case scenarios that have used stadiums for neighbourhood revitalization (Baltimore's Camden Yards and the Gateway in Cleveland) show that the cost per job created is very high and that these neighbourhoods did not grow any faster than surrounding areas. Overall, there is very little evidence to support the argument that a new stadium would result in any meaningful long-term economic benefits for Winnipeg or revitalization of the neighbourhood of South Point Douglas. Similar arguments could be made for Asper's private leisure facility and retail complex, which will likely do all they can to capture the dollars of its visitors, leaving little to no external benefits for existing downtown businesses.

This redevelopment project is being marketed as urban renewal and comes affixed with many bells and whistles to gain public support. Winnipeggers need to question the credibility of our various levels of government when it comes to these claims and following up on these popular additions that are often added onto these megaprojects to make them more palatable to a skeptical public. Waverley West, for example, was sold to the public by including many environmentally friendly features, many of which are now defunct, and the MTS Centre has fallen well short of the claims that it would revitalize Portage Avenue, which continues to be beset by business closures and vacancies.

The real key to generating urban revitalization is increasing urban density, which for Winnipeg means getting more people to live downtown and in the surrounding neighbourhoods. The original Point Douglas stadium proposal included reference to a residential component, but it is questionable whether this aspect of the proposal is feasible. There is no mention of residential facilities in the latest released proposal. Chances are a new stadium would actually deter rather than promote urban density and increased residential development: Heavy inflows of traffic, noise and rowdy football fans on evenings and weekends are unlikely to induce people to purchase a home in the surrounding neighbourhoods. A new stadium puts at risk the progress that has been made in South Point Douglas and on Waterfront Drive, and may end up hurting real urban revitalization in the long run.

Manitobans need to ask whether spending millions of their tax dollars on a new stadium and private retail and leisure facilities will deliver the greatest good to the greatest number of people. The figure quoted by Asper is likely only the beginning, and seemingly ignores the infrastructure redevelopment costs that will be required in the vicinity, which will likely be many times more than the quoted $40 million. If our three levels of government are truly interested in urban revitalization, they would be better off investing these funds on projects that have been shown to generate urban revitalization, such as downtown residential redevelopment or a desperately needed rapid-transit system.


Jesse Hajer is an economist and research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Manitoba.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Creswin is very well financed ... that has never been in doubt.

The Portage and Main building failed, but becuase of a lack of money, it failed because of a lack of tenants (ie: weak demand for highend office space).

The funding close to 300 million in private funding when this project is complete will be partially aided by the retail development Creswin will be constructing at Polo Park.

If this development goes through it will see significant increase in land values in Point Douglas, and will also draw many more developments in Exchange and St.B. Sam Katz has to be recognized for his hard work, as stated by Doer.

The parking issue will be similar to that of the MTS centre, where fans will primarily be forced to use the lots in the exchange and walk to and from the game, with new bars and restaurants dotting Waterfront Drive.

Most of the parking at the site will be reserved for the large water park, hotel and commercial buildings.

nowhere does it say creswin will pay 300 million dollars....it says 75% of the building construction cost, but that is not the cost of what he is building....the retail, docks, transit, roads, bridges, residential buildings are all not part of his plan...they are part of that $400m estimate.

asper is really building 2 unrelated projects.....it sounds like he is paying for most of the stadium, but if you consider that he is getting the land and infrastructure for free (probably $100m value), the percentage is a lot lower. the waterpark, which i hope he builds regardless, is a private investment, relying on the benefit of the free land and services, probably a tax break to make it profitable.

your assertion that it will bring other development to the exchange etc, is false....that will not happen....i can not emphasize that enough....did it happen at MTS, used 20 times more often?...its more likely to cause increased surface parking in neighbourhoods with land easy to obtain because of low property values....that is the experience of most other modern stadium development in north america.

the plan for the rest of the site looks like kenaston and mcgillvray big box stores....the ficticious renderings show something different but the plan is pretty clear....its a neighbourhood of parking lots surrounded by a stadium used 12 times a year....the waterpark is a great proposal, but it doesnt make the stadium any more appropriate for that site....neither depends on the other for success...it is just a way to make the stadium look better....its like a garnish.

[trueviking]

i wish asper liked NHL hockey instead of CFL football....

[viperred88]

Originally Posted by trueviking

..its a neighbourhood of parking lots surrounded by a stadium used 12 times a year....the waterpark is great, but has nothing to do with making the stadium any better.

I don't know why he doesn't attach the waterpark to the stadium like the Canad'inns proposal.

word is sport manitoba is looking at setting up its office in south point douglas with a sports training centre. So if thats the case put a condo with it or attach it to the stadium.

attach some retail to the stadium to make it lively (with storefront access), Surround other mix use buildings around the whole stadium Aspers plan along the river is way too big of a footprint to happen right aways. However I do believe in time developement east of stadium should proceed eastwards. Just acquire land when there is demand for more residential units (condos) and implement laot of greenspace park like central park in new york with indoor and outdoor sports field and recreation centre. For example if you had a curling rink as part of the main floor of the condo complex that would make it so there is no dead single use buildings. Thus making it a busier and safer area.

[viperred88]

for some of you who are not aware of Point Douglas here are some pics surrounding the stadium debate, that Mr Christian has made available.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/christiansphotos/

[viperred88]

... Will they come?

Stadium projects pitched as urban renewal can be flops

By PAUL TURENNE, SUN MEDIA

The sports-facility-as-urban-development game can be a great for a city, but history has shown it can also be tricky.

Cities like Cleveland, Baltimore, Chicago, San Diego and others have all tried to rejuvenate older parts of their communities with a stadium or arena, but have experienced mixed results.

"Big projects like this can serve as catalysts, but just because you build one doesn't mean it's going to happen," said Tim Chapin, an associate professor of urban and regional planning at Florida State University.

Chapin has studied the impact of sports facilities on economic development and sees good planning, follow-through and supportive investment as the keys to success.

"There are two that really jump out as examples where it's been successful -- Cleveland and San Diego," he said.




For more than a decade, downtown boosters in Cleveland were planning to breathe new life into the Central Market area, the gateway to downtown, by introducing professional sports to the neighbourhood.

"It was very high-crime, very low-rent," Chapin said. "They knew what they wanted. They came up with a district plan ... The tagline they used was 'More than a stadium.' "

The Gateway Sports and Entertainment Complex opened in 1994 with two anchor facilities: Jacobs Field (renamed Progressive Field this year), home to MLB's Cleveland Indians, and the Quicken Loans Arena, where the NBA's Cleveland Cavaliers and AHL's Lake Erie Monsters play.

The city built new roads, sidewalks and other infrastructure at the same time, while hundreds of millions of dollars in investment followed in hotels, new residences, restaurants, T-shirt shops and a mall, Chapin said.

'Done wonders'

"It's done wonders," said Mark Lammon, special projects manager with the Downtown Cleveland Alliance, that city's equivalent of the Downtown BIZ.

Lammon said the area has added 950 housing units since 1994, as well as entertainment and restaurant venues and office space.

"The results of how downtown has developed speak for themselves," he said.

A slightly different success is still budding in southern California. In 2004, MLB's San Diego Padres began playing in Petco Park, a new baseball stadium built on the edge of downtown San Diego's historic tourist mecca, the Gaslamp Quarter. The team's owner invested more than $300 million in hotel, retail and residential developments, while the city used the increased property tax to fund the stadium.

"They had a deal where they said 'We'll build you a ballpark and you build us a district,' " Chapin said. "It's still a work in progress but it is going well."

Other projects have not gone so smoothly.

"The list of stadium debacles is long," said Ian Hudson, an associate professor of economics who teaches a class called the Economics of Sports and Leisure at the University of Manitoba. "You avoid that by having a much more integrated urban redevelopment strategy other than planting a stadium down and hoping for the best. The stadium has to be one part of an overall strategy."

The United Center in Chicago, for example, has been a flop, Hudson said. People just drive to Bulls or Blackhawks games and leave, he said, noting little of the hoped-for spin-offs ever occurred.

Although Hudson said Baltimore's Camden Yards baseball park has been a success, Chapin doesn't agree.

"That project was sold in part as a rejuvenation to neighbourhoods west of downtown. It really hasn't done that," Chapin said.

Opened in 1992, the park led to some development but the investment was in properties already seen as safe bets and ignored more challenging properties, Chapin said.

"They talked the redevelopment game but didn't plan for or invest in it," he said.