Regina | New Mosaic Stadium

[Stormer]

If I remember correctly, Patel said that new polycarbonate sheets are so light and strong that his "spider web" supports would hold it up in all conceivable wind and snow conditions. We will see if any of the 3 consortiums is prepared to take that chance.

If the spider web worked it would be awesome. Every other stadium seems to have obtrusive beams and trusses.

[jvj]

Time to bump this thread.
I drove through Evraz grounds yesterday and all of the existing buildings in the Southeast corner of the site (including foundations) appear to be removed and the ground is more or less levelled.
I did take a couple of pictures but you don't really see much except for construction fences.
There is also a fenced area near the armouries where there appears to be some utility work underway.
I was also re-reading some of the recent comments in this thread and it appears that quite a few people don't quite understand the process.
People are asking "when will tender docs be sent to the trades" or "when will the final renders be released"...but they need to realize that this is an RFP process, not a traditional tender.
The firms that are pursuing this work have been called "proponents" not bidders, because the award is not based on price.
Each firm was given an RFP that includes a list of requirements...not a definitive set of drawings.
The proponents then assemble some detailed design drawings, which include the individual architects conceptual version of how best to deliver the required elements in a reasonably attractive, reasonably cost effective manner.
Along with the design & pricing the firms also have to put together a financing package that fits within the financial guidelines that they have been given.
And the agenda was then to receive 3 unique proposals, each with different architectural elements, but all delivering the same minimum content dictated by the RFP.
PS-At one point I was part of a pursuit team, but we didn't make it to the final 3, so now I just get to be an unbiased observer!
PPS - These are the dates that (at least to my knowledge) are still in effect:
April 4th - RFQ Submission
May 30th - Notification of successful parties (3 firms)
July 17th - Official RFP is issued.
Dec. 9th - RFP closes.
Jan. 20th, 2014 - successful Design-Build-Finance group is chosen.

[Migs]

"Regina Stadium Plan Coming Together"
per Leader-Post

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Regin...292/story.html

[SkydivePilot]

Fougere says: "No domed stadium."

Damn.

[Stormer]

That was the first really cold game I can remember in the past many, many years. Attendance suffered but the game was unaffected. I cannot see how a dome could be justified for the occasional bad weather situation.

I originally supported the dome, but now favour open air with protection from the wind, spectator roof and other environmental features that will make it more comfortable than Mosaic.

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by Stormer

That was the first really cold game I can remember in the past many, many years. Attendance suffered but the game was unaffected. I cannot see how a dome could be justified for the occasional bad weather situation.

I originally supported the dome, but now favour open air with protection from the wind, spectator roof and other environmental features that will make it more comfortable than Mosaic.

. . . . . yes; however, it'll still be a white elephant for about 6 months/year. (I personally hope that they still make it roof-ready though - just in case.)

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

. . . . . yes; however, it'll still be a white elephant for about 6 months/year. (I personally hope that they still make it roof-ready though - just in case.)

I don't think the province has removed that condition from their funding, so it's probably still a requirement.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I don't think the province has removed that condition from their funding, so it's probably still a requirement.

Concept design says:

9.5 Roof Ready

Spectator Roof

Base Condition

Independent Retractable

Roof Ready

A number of options were considered for enabling
schemes (Roof Ready) allowing various upgrades to
the roof over time. The simplest of these is an open
stadium with a bowl structure capable of accepting
a roof at a future date. As the base case is now
a Spectator Roof, only two roof ready options are
possible; filling in the aperture to create a permanent
indoor venue or installing an operable roof allowing
either indoor or open use. As this flexibility is
required, the roof ready proposal is for an operable
roof.
There are a number of factors to consider in
designing the stadium to accept an operable roof in
the future, including:

• Foundation implications
• Geometry
• Original roof structure
• Fire strategy
• Internal environment

As detailed in this report, the summer climate can be
addressed without the need for cooling. The internal
environment can be managed by the air infiltration
louvers. Hence no provision needs to be made for
additional plant in the event a roof is added.
The three most critical issues are foundations,
geometry and base roof structure. There are many
options here but the broad range is; maximum
initial works or minimal initial works, i.e. implement
as many elements as in the base scheme leaving
less to add in the future or; do as little as possible
initially and leave it for the future. The former option
is attractive if the eventual upgrade is a certainty as
the overall cost is less, i.e. high initial cost with lower
conversion cost. The latter is better if the eventual
upgrade is only a possibility or initial funds are
capped and insufficient, i.e. lower initial cost and
higher conversion cost, which is the case with the
current funding arrangement for the stadium project.
Given the innovative approach and encouraging
wind performance results of the Spectator Roof, it
is quite possible that the fans will find this the best
blend of open air and protected. Fortunately, the
geometry of the proposal is well suited to receiving a
future operable roof without increasing the initial cost.
The provision here is spatial and the proposed base
design has the following benefits in regard to this:

• Sunken bowl and minimal end stands
• High roof line

These factors allow an independent operable roof to
be added in the future. This would comprise a pair
of arches spanning the length of the field outboard
of the side lines. They would be mounted on vertical
supports landing at Main Concourse on the outer
perimeter of the end stands. The large volume here
allows for future construction access for foundations.
The arches would fit under the current roof plane
and carry the moving roof panels. A number of
options are possible for the moving panel including;
independent moving and rotating panels, concertina
fabric or fixed large panel. The design of these
will be reviewed in the next stage together with the
disruption implications for erecting the arches. Some
disruption is inevitable but with prefabrication and
partial occupation, games could continue. However
it is generally more expensive than just shutting the
stadium for a season or half a season and completing

the work in one phase.

[dsmmace]

Having seen the design plans, they all have features and benefits to each design. It will be interesting to see what design is chosen. Due to confidentiality there is nothing more I can personally say.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by dsmmace

Having seen the design plans, they all have features and benefits to each design. It will be interesting to see what design is chosen. Due to confidentiality there is nothing more I can personally say.

Can you at least say whether you like them?

[cutterp]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Can you at least say whether you like them?

The first one I saw was nice. Can't wait to see more of the others if I get the chance.

[Welkin]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

. . . . . yes; however, it'll still be a white elephant for about 6 months/year. (I personally hope that they still make it roof-ready though - just in case.)

It will not be a White Elephant just because it will sit empty for part of the year. It is a football stadium built to hold football games. That is it. It will do its job just fine. It should generate enough income to cover its expenses. Nobody ever calls MLB stadiums White Elephants just because they don't play baseball in January. Nobody calls NFL stadiums White Elephants just because they sit empty in the off season.

Something does not have to be used year around to be considered viable, especially when it comes to sports or big events. NASCAR tracks only host 1-2 big races per year yet they are highly profitable. Texas Motor Speedway was built for $250 million and holds 190,000 seats. It only hosts 2 major NASCAR races each year, but those races are enough to make this a very profitable racetrack. Would you consider it a White Elephant just because they aren't running races in January? This stadium will be far from a White Elephant (unless for some reason the CFL shuts down).

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by Welkin

It will not be a White Elephant just because it will sit empty for part of the year. It is a football stadium built to hold football games. That is it. It will do its job just fine. It should generate enough income to cover its expenses. Nobody ever calls MLB stadiums White Elephants just because they don't play baseball in January. Nobody calls NFL stadiums White Elephants just because they sit empty in the off season.

Something does not have to be used year around to be considered viable, especially when it comes to sports or big events. NASCAR tracks only host 1-2 big races per year yet they are highly profitable. Texas Motor Speedway was built for $250 million and holds 190,000 seats. It only hosts 2 major NASCAR races each year, but those races are enough to make this a very profitable racetrack. Would you consider it a White Elephant just because they aren't running races in January? This stadium will be far from a White Elephant (unless for some reason the CFL shuts down).

NASCAR facilities are located at climatologically-accommodating locations. Besides that, try doming a NASCAR track.

My argument simply is: why build another massive outdoor stadium knowing the climate we have? Furthermore, the main caveat for financing was that it be roof-ready. When the time comes to stick a lid on 'er, the facility would likely be shut down for a whole season in order to complete the job. And, . . . . as time goes by, the cost of installing the aforementioned roof will skyrocket as well --- guaranteed.

If this was to be a domed stadium for certain, it would have the potential of being utilized year-round. ( . . . and would be the only facility of this calibre for a very significant portion of North America.)

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

NASCAR facilities are located at climatologically-accommodating locations. Besides that, try doming a NASCAR track.

My argument simply is: why build another massive outdoor stadium knowing the climate we have? Furthermore, the main caveat for financing was that it be roof-ready. When the time comes to stick a lid on 'er, the facility would likely be shut down for a whole season in order to complete the job. And, . . . . as time goes by, the cost of installing the aforementioned roof will skyrocket as well --- guaranteed.

If this was to be a domed stadium for certain, it would have the potential of being utilized year-round. ( . . . and would be the only facility of this calibre for a very significant portion of North America.)

Only one that would work would be Bristol. Which would be amazing to see! 160,000+ indoor Race Track. WOW!

[The Unknown Poster]

We had the roof debate here in Winnipeg. Trust me, you don't need a roof.

[Dillweed]

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

We had the roof debate here in Winnipeg. Trust me, you don't need a roof.

No but would it at least make sense for a little extra money to have a design that would allow you to keep your options open and if warranted install a retractable roof at some point in the future. Makes perfect sense to me, after all who knows what the future will bring. Ten years from now we could be in Global Cooling or the Roughriders could be playing in the NFL.

The Roughriders have shown this year that they can put more than 40,000 fans in seats for a regular season game more than once. I think if anything they should be looking at something with a little larger permanent seating capacity say north of 35,000 and expandable closer to 50,000. But I doubt at this stage in the designing process they are going to change their minds from what they have already announced.

[esquire]

The roof debate really boils down to how much extra revenue will the roof generate. Will the expected increase in season ticket sales and increased revenues from other events pay for the additional cost of a roof?

Personally, I think the answer is that it's pretty unlikely. A roof probably won't have a significant effect on Rider ticket sales (other than piddly stuff like improved walkups on cold/wet days). It probably won't lead to another major tenant - the best-case scenario is maybe a sub-MLS soccer team might join the fray. So it really boils down to whether the extra concerts and shows would be enough to pay for the roof. You'd have to hold an amazing number of stadium shows to make it worthwhile.

I guess there was that one pitch a while ago for a dome that included a hockey rink... maybe if the facility became Regina's main hockey arena too it could work, but really... large stadiums are never ideal for hockey and basketball. People hated Tropicana Field when it hosted the Lightning, and Skydome was a terrible home to the Raptors. Turning a domed stadium into a home to the Pats would turn the fans off after the novelty died.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Originally Posted by esquire

I guess there was that one pitch a while ago for a dome that included a hockey rink... maybe if the facility became Regina's main hockey arena too it could work, but really... large stadiums are never ideal for hockey and basketball. People hated Tropicana Field when it hosted the Lightning, and Skydome was a terrible home to the Raptors. Turning a domed stadium into a home to the Pats would turn the fans off after the novelty died.

Sounds like something I heard for the old Silverdome in Pontiac Michigan - a hockey rink underneath a soccer field

[wacko]

I would have doubts about the Roughriders' ability to consistently attract more than 33,000 people on a regular basis (other than Labour Day). True, they have done it this year, but this year they also have a good team, and we're hosting the Grey Cup as well. It would be more interesting to see what the crowds are like when neither of those factors are in play. I really do think 33,000 is the general saturation point, and that's what they're building for. As for future demand, I think they may perhaps be looking to limit the seats somewhat so that they remain in demand and thus encourage people to retain their season tickets (à la Montreal and Molson Stadium). I believe the design requirements call for the new stadium to be expandable to 42,000 for Grey Cups, which seems rather low to me. I'd rather see a figure closer to 45,000.

Ideally, I'd like to see a stadium with wind shielding and a spectator roof. Basically like IGF Field in Winnipeg, only better. That would improve fan comfort without being too expensive. A dome would just be an unnecessary expense solely for the purpose of holding a couple of extra events a year (that we don't already have), and would also generate far greater operational costs for heating and cooling. Just not worth it in my opinion, especially when we're talking about taxpayer money.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by wacko

I would have doubts about the Roughriders' ability to consistently attract more than 33,000 people on a regular basis (other than Labour Day). True, they have done it this year, but this year they also have a good team, and we're hosting the Grey Cup as well. It would be more interesting to see what the crowds are like when neither of those factors are in play. I really do think 33,000 is the general saturation point, and that's what they're building for. As for future demand, I think they may perhaps be looking to limit the seats somewhat so that they remain in demand and thus encourage people to retain their season tickets (à la Montreal and Molson Stadium). I believe the design requirements call for the new stadium to be expandable to 42,000 for Grey Cups, which seems rather low to me. I'd rather see a figure closer to 45,000.

Ideally, I'd like to see a stadium with wind shielding and a spectator roof. Basically like IGF Field in Winnipeg, only better. That would improve fan comfort without being too expensive. A dome would just be an unnecessary expense solely for the purpose of holding a couple of extra events a year (that we don't already have), and would also generate far greater operational costs for heating and cooling. Just not worth it in my opinion, especially when we're talking about taxpayer money.

Population isn't stagnant now though, and probably won't be stagnant again for some time. Regina and area is adding about 6-8k a year with Sask adding 20k or so. And new immigrants have been far more likely to get into the CFL here than elsewhere in the country. The stadium is going to have to last 40 years or so...

I think a good perm capacity would have been 35k, this would allow you to keep some seats lower priced to get the casual/future fan in (which Montreal basically lost), then have Grey Cups up to 45-50k. If it is a closed in bowl like the original design, wind/rain becomes basically a non-issue, and ambient temp will be higher within the stadium than outside, so cold weather games will also be better than the current situation.

But sadly, I think it will be 30-33k with max of 40k