HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5901  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2022, 6:41 PM
Hawrylyshyn's Avatar
Hawrylyshyn Hawrylyshyn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,973
Demolishing the stadium and rotating it in a North-South direction, as it allowed the stadium to meet FIFA guidelines and be eligible to host international matches
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5902  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2022, 6:47 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn View Post
Demolishing the stadium and rotating it in a North-South direction, as it allowed the stadium to meet FIFA guidelines and be eligible to host international matches
This is important too. And I wonder if TD Place can't host certain events because of limitations related to its original stadium infrastructure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5903  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2022, 6:56 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 8,084
Mitchell answers questions
Steve Milton Sep 01 2011 theSpec.com

At first blush, it all seems counterintuitive.

How can building new stands on the north side of Ivor Wynne Stadium not cost more than renovating the current ones?

And how can the significantly reduced seating capacity — from the original 25,000 seats to a reported 22,500 — not negatively impact the Hamilton Tiger-Cats’ bottom line?

Those were among the nagging questions after it was revealed last week that plans for the Pan Am Stadium on the current site of Ivor Wynne now call for the entire north stands to be torn down and rebuilt, instead of being refurbished atop the current infrastructure.

“This is absolutely and positively the most cost-efficient and responsible decision,” Ticat president Scott Mitchell answered Wednesday. “This isn’t a good thing, it’s a great thing.”

By agreeing to the reduced seat inventory, the Ticats made a major concession to Infrastructure Ontario to keep construction costs at the original estimate.

And, Mitchell says, potential builders will welcome the idea of constructing the north stands from the ground up, rather than trying to work around existing flaws, many of which are major.

“That’s 100 per cent accurate,” Mitchell said. “This creates cost certainty in the construction phase. You never know what you’re going to find out when you renovate. It might have involved all kinds of (capital) expense that wasn’t anticipated. And this prohibits the city from potentially having to spend tens of millions of dollars in maintenance of the north stands in the next few years.”

Additionally, having renovated north stands with uncomfortable bench seating and the same washroom and concession facilities as in the past would have meant that the Cats, and the city, were going to operate, in effect, two different facilities.

“What was clearly emerging was a have-versus-have-not scenario on the two sides of the stadium,” he said. “And that’s not conducive to effective cost management or a good in-stadium experience.”

The Tiger-Cats need to derive $10 million per year, or roughly $1 million per game, from ticket sales. Mitchell, bound by a confidentiality clause, would not comment on the exact capacity of the new stadium. But assuming the 22,500 figure is accurate, at an average $50 per ticket, the Cats will cover the $10 million as long as they sell out most games.

And a smaller stadium actually helps dramatically with that. Increasing the demand for tickets because there is a limited supply should translate into more season ticket holders than the current number, estimated to be slightly under 15,000. The Chicago Cubs and Boston Red Sox have always operated that way because of their old, small stadiums, but in 1990 the Baltimore Orioles became the first professional sports team to deliberately build a new stadium smaller than their old one. That forces fans to buy season’s tickets for fear that they won’t be able to get the tickets for games they really want. Then, weather and the competitive state of the team don’t affect sales as profoundly. The Montreal Alouettes had the same situation with the 20,000-seat Molson Stadium, and sold out every game for years.

The Ticats average between 23,000 and 24,000 spectators per game but about 20 per cent of them enjoy complimentary tickets, significantly lower than the figure from three years ago but still nearly double the industry standard. Tightening up on contra (tickets instead of cash, paid for services) and special group sales will allow the Cats to realize full income from a far greater percentage of the seats.

“So the biggest casualty in the capacity reduction will be those contra deals and big corporate buys,” Mitchell said.

The break-even point for most CFL teams is believed to be about $15 million in total annual income. With recent huge increases in TV viewership, broadcast revenues are expected to double or triple in the next couple of years, taking a big bite out of the $5 million income required beyond ticket sales. While the number of high-rent corporate boxes and club seats slated for the new stadium have not been revealed, there are going to be at least twice as many as there are now, adding more income potential to the Cats’ balance sheet.

“And clearly, we’ll have major increased revenue from concessions and merchandising because of an enhanced stadium experience,” Mitchell says. “It will also be a better experience for our corporate partners.”

The Ticats plan to cap individual season ticket sales at between 17,000 and 18,000. Season’s tickets prices for 2011 range from $14 per game in the end zone to $160 for the box seats at midfield. Those prices are expected to rise by two per cent next year.

But the team announced Wednesday that season’s tickets for 2012, the last season at Ivor Wynne, would cost the same as tickets for 2014, the first season in the new stadium.

“We wanted to nip in the bud all the talk that ‘I won’t be able to go to the new stadium because I can’t afford it,’” Mitchell explained.

Mitchell also said that the $1.3 million rent the Cats will pay the city in the new stadium will be the highest in the CFL and that the more income the club makes, the more the city will make on their rake-off of the profit, over and above the rental agreement.

And, he says, the seating capacity on opening day doesn’t have to remain that way. He wouldn’t comment directly, but the configuration of the new stadium has to include room for enough temporary seating to reach the 40,000 minimum required to play host to a Grey Cup Game.

“Infrastructure Ontario will deliver a great stadium, but obviously there’d be nothing stopping us, as far as far as post-Pan Am Games go, from adding more seating ourselves.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5904  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2022, 7:00 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 8,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreamingViking View Post
This is important too. And I wonder if TD Place can't host certain events because of limitations related to its original stadium infrastructure.
They played FIFA WWC games there in 2015.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5905  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2022, 7:20 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
So there is an arena component after all? That's exciting, although I wonder what the prospects would be if there is a much larger NHL arena right nearby. The Civic Centre worked as a more central alternative to the CTC in Kanata, but it may not be so appealing if a new rink is built at Lebreton. It may make more sense for the 67s to simply play there, assuming a deal can be worked out with Sens ownership.
The plan was to rebuild the Civic Centre as a smaller 5,000 seat arena at Lansdowne, but this render seems to throw that idea away. Maybe we're reading way to much into it, or maybe something's going on in the background to bring the Sens/67s/Blackjacks under one roof at LeBreton.

Should we end up with two rinks; 5k at Lansdowne and 15k at LeBreton, they may not be competing with one another due to the size difference. If nothing is built at LeBreton, Ottawa may lose out on more events without the large-ish centrally located Civic as it exists.

So three scenarios:

1. One arena at LeBreton - 15-18k capacity;
2. Kanata 18k and Lansdowne 5k;
3. LeBreton 15-18k and Lansdowne 5k.

And we have the Slush in Gatineau at 4k, but that's a whole different market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5906  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 11:00 AM
Friedrich Nietzsche Friedrich Nietzsche is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 36
In the mid-2010s TD Place was touted as "WORLD CLASS" by many regulars on this forum (you know who you are). Dissenters who pointed out the many flaws/shortcomings that are now being widely exposed/accepted were routinely banned ("cancelled") from the forum for their "unacceptable views" (I know a guy). The chickens always come home to roost. Told you so (is what he'd say).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5907  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 1:37 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedrich Nietzsche View Post
In the mid-2010s TD Place was touted as "WORLD CLASS" by many regulars on this forum (you know who you are). Dissenters who pointed out the many flaws/shortcomings that are now being widely exposed/accepted were routinely banned ("cancelled") from the forum for their "unacceptable views" (I know a guy). The chickens always come home to roost. Told you so (is what he'd say).
Ha.

But was the intent ever for the north side stands to remain in place for all eternity? Or was this simply a phased operation with the south stands built first to replace the previous structure which was by then partly demolished, followed by the eventual replacement of the north stands?

Ottawa is basically getting a new stadium on the installment plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5908  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 1:55 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Ha.

But was the intent ever for the north side stands to remain in place for all eternity? Or was this simply a phased operation with the south stands built first to replace the previous structure which was by then partly demolished, followed by the eventual replacement of the north stands?

Ottawa is basically getting a new stadium on the installment plan.
Half-measures type of situation. Ottawa's great for that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5909  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 2:01 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 69,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedrich Nietzsche View Post
In the mid-2010s TD Place was touted as "WORLD CLASS" by many regulars on this forum (you know who you are). Dissenters who pointed out the many flaws/shortcomings that are now being widely exposed/accepted were routinely banned ("cancelled") from the forum for their "unacceptable views" (I know a guy). The chickens always come home to roost. Told you so (is what he'd say).
Did anybody really say world-class? I definitely didn't.

I thought it was *OK* because the alternative was Ottawa not having a stadium at all.
__________________
No, you're not on my ignore list. Because I don't have one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5910  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 2:16 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ Agreed. TD Place never struck me as some amazing showpiece of a stadium... rather it was a bit of a throwback to the practical "old ways" of CFL stadium building where the facility evolved organically over time. Which is fine, it worked, the new stand is nice, and it was likely a lot less expensive than building something totally brand new from scratch... at least in such a desirable central part of town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5911  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 2:24 PM
Djeffery Djeffery is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 4,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ Agreed. TD Place never struck me as some amazing showpiece of a stadium... rather it was a bit of a throwback to the practical "old ways" of CFL stadium building where the facility evolved organically over time. Which is fine, it worked, the new stand is nice, and it was likely a lot less expensive than building something totally brand new from scratch... at least in such a desirable central part of town.
If not for the arena, they probably would have demolished and entirely rebuilt the stadium back when the south side was built. But, they did what they had to do with the situation they had/have. Can't really find fault in that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5912  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 3:17 PM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 5,244
After going to many games at TD Place here are my observations:

The south side stands are nice, the concourse is huge (and a great meeting place) but the lower seats are terrible because you are so low and both teams are located on the one side that you cannot see over the players. That is why on TV it looks like nobody is there because most people are up in the concourse and party zones socializing.
I understand why they have all the players on one sideline (TSN has likely forced this, but the CFL should push back) but it leads to many incidents between opposing players and looks bush IMO.
As for the North side, well they should bite the bullet and just replace it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5913  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 3:31 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ I remember when the place opened up thinking that the front row of south side stands was oddly low. It looks like what you'd expect to see in a hockey rink, but it doesn't work for football because there is a considerable gap between the stands and the playing field, and there are often people standing around in that space blocking the view. Not to mention the fact that the field is wide and a higher perspective actually allows you to see the whole thing.

It's ironic because the front row of the north stands at TD Place actually are fairly high and they got that right when they built it in the 60s. But then the RBs installed some kind of club seating area down low at field level, which is a terrible place to sit for football. It's like Ottawa somehow forgot how to properly design a football stadium between the 60s and now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5914  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 4:10 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 8,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedrich Nietzsche View Post
In the mid-2010s TD Place was touted as "WORLD CLASS" by many regulars on this forum (you know who you are).
Really, I certainly don't recall that. Maybe you mean the writers of the posted articles who constantly do that. In fact, that is a pet peeve of mine which I have posted about in forums. Every facility calls itself "world class". You can have certain parts that the best buildings in the world have: locker rooms, artificial turf etc. But to me "world class" is the building as a whole - design included. I'm not sure if by my definition we have anything "world class" in Canada now but we definitely have some good facilities that are often underrated by some posters.

I would think the SkyDome when it opened could have been deemed as "world class"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5915  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 4:14 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 8,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djeffery View Post
If not for the arena, they probably would have demolished and entirely rebuilt the stadium back when the south side was built. But, they did what they had to do with the situation they had/have. Can't really find fault in that.
Agreed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5916  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 4:18 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 8,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ Agreed. TD Place never struck me as some amazing showpiece of a stadium... rather it was a bit of a throwback to the practical "old ways" of CFL stadium building where the facility evolved organically over time.
That was the British design model, like forever, and everybody raved about those Frankenstein stadiums. It's all about perception. If the perception of the CFL was better people would speak of Molson Stadium like they would Fenway (not a literal comparison, a historical one).

Last edited by elly63; Apr 12, 2022 at 4:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5917  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 4:45 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63 View Post
Really, I certainly don't recall that. Maybe you mean the writers of the posted articles who constantly do that. In fact, that is a pet peeve of mine which I have posted about in forums. Every facility calls itself "world class". You can have certain parts that the best buildings in the world have: locker rooms, artificial turf etc. But to me "world class" is the building as a whole - design included. I'm not sure if by my definition we have anything "world class" in Canada now but we definitely have some good facilities that are often underrated by some posters.

I would think the SkyDome when it opened could have been deemed as "world class"
Skydome and Olympic Stadium for sure. BC Place and Commonwealth Stadium were probably as good or better than almost every other stadium on earth when they were built as well. So at least 4 world class stadiums, although one could argue over whether any of them still have that status.

We do better when it comes to arenas, all of the NHL barns are unarguably world class indoor rinks and then you have some others that could be argued to make the cut as well including Centre Videotron, SaskTel Centre and maaaaybe Copps Coliseum and Pacific Coliseum. I know some may roll their eyes at the last two but they are still among the best you'll find outside the NBA and NHL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5918  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 5:07 PM
thewave46 thewave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Skydome and Olympic Stadium for sure. BC Place and Commonwealth Stadium were probably as good or better than almost every other stadium on earth when they were built as well. So at least 4 world class stadiums, although one could argue over whether any of them still have that status.

We do better when it comes to arenas, all of the NHL barns are unarguably world class indoor rinks and then you have some others that could be argued to make the cut as well including Centre Videotron, SaskTel Centre and maaaaybe Copps Coliseum and Pacific Coliseum. I know some may roll their eyes at the last two but they are still among the best you'll find outside the NBA and NHL.
I always view the term 'world-class' with some hesitancy. If a smaller country like Canada has more than a handful of world-class facilities, are they really world class?

When I think of world-class arenas, I'm thinking Madison Square Gardens or the O2 in London. That's an intangible thing, though. Arenas lack a certain panache to set themselves apart from each other. They're pretty much the same the world over after a certain threshold has been reached for design. Staples Center isn't really that different from ACC in terms of experience, despite LA being a much more world city than Toronto.

Outstanding world-class stadiums at the time of their construction in this country? Skydome. Olympic Stadium. BC Place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5919  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 5:11 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
I guess people can argue over the definition, but as I understand it "world class" doesn't necessarily mean the very best of the best or the most iconic, but "among the best" would be a more appropriate way to put it. I guess from a functional standpoint a "world class" venue should be capable of handling top flight (as opposed to just local/regional) events.

TD Place is a good stadium that meets the needs of the community, but would I call it "world class"? No.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5920  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2022, 5:19 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 8,084
There is a guy on YouTube who has a hockey channel where he reads newspaper articles from 50 years ago describing what was happening in the league for that week 50 years ago. In this case it was November 15-21, 1970.

He has one that references the $32.5 million Omniplex (the planned combined hockey/football facility for Edmonton) It's kind of interesting to hear how close it may have come to fruition. It would seat 19,600 (variable) for hockey and 32,000 for football. In one of the articles, Bill Hunter stated that the Eskimos (for 8 home games) have a budget of $900,000 and average 23,000 fans per game, the budget for an NHL team was $300,000 for 39 home games.



Retrofutures: Edmonton’s Omniplex – Part 1
Retrofutures: Edmonton’s Omniplex – Part 2
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:54 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.