Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[elly63]

^Agree. I think this is the prudent way to go, if it all goes to hell the city would be left with a suitable 12k structure they should have had by now anyway.

[q12]

Some higher resolution stadium renders:


https://www.facebook.com/schoonersat...4992051890451/


https://www.facebook.com/schoonersat...4992051890451/


https://www.facebook.com/schoonersat...4992051890451/

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

WAs in Edmonton yesterday and swung by Rogers to check it out, kind of surprised with the quality of workmanship on it, lots of oil canning on the cladding, and you can easily make out the structure behind it in places. Great looking arena, but there appears to have been significant Value Engineering...

What is oil canning?

I know they had get rid of the zinc covering they had planned on the outside of the arena. I also hear complaints from Oiler fans about the concourse width and lack of points of sale and lack of washrooms in the upper deck. Also hear the seats are cramped in the upper deck as well - 18 inches which is one less inch then most new arenas and only 1 inch wider then the cramped seats at Bell MTS Centre.

[blueandgoldguy]

The renders must be of the 12,000 seat facility correct? Where would the 10,000 seats the owners invest in go. All in the end zone.

It's a basic render but with the apparent lack of high end seating options (club seats, suites, loges) this team will be behind the 8-ball financially from it's inception. Not exactly ideal.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

The renders must be of the 12,000 seat facility correct? Where would the 10,000 seats the owners invest in go. All in the end zone.

The main stand (with boxes/media) has the 12K seats. 10K is the opposite stand. It's basically Lansdowne but with a smaller North Stand and no integrated concourse underneath.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

It's a basic render but with the apparent lack of high end seating options (club seats, suites, loges) this team will be behind the 8-ball financially from it's inception. Not exactly ideal.

To my eyes it looks like that stuff will be on the permanent seating side... not much different than THF where the premium seating areas are on one side, and the other side just has normal seats.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by elly63

I meant from anything the Halifax ownership group had said. I know about TD Place Arena (Civic Centre).

I don't know that Halifax needs another 10,000 ish arena, does it? The Metro Centre (or whatever it is called) is in decent shape, is it not?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I think it may be closer to Renegades than to Redblacks.

I think it may be true that there aren't huge amounts of dollars behind the team, but the climate in the community will be very different from what it was in Ottawa with the Renegades.

The Renegades were the focus of a huge amount of cynicism not only vis-à-vis the CFL in the city but also about the owners, the Glieberman family of Michigan. Who were actually very rich but were at their second try at owning a CFL club in Ottawa - they owned the Rough Riders as well at the end of their existence and that ended up being as disastrous as the Renegades foray was.

A CFL team in Halifax will almost certainly begin its life within a much more positive, upbeat attitude in the community and that new car shine will help them through the early years, even if success on the field is not always there. (And it's not that hard to build a strong team in the CFL, as we've seen with the Redblacks.)

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by elly63

Not with the kind of money that was being suggested (130 million). Unless they use some of that cheap Canadian construction labour and materials, that you're always telling us about, right?

Is the $130 million for a 12,000 seat stadium or a 26,000 seat stadium?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

Is the $130 million for a 12,000 seat stadium or a 26,000 seat stadium?

$130M is supposed to be for all 26K of it, presumably.

[osmo]

Canadian stadium trends are odd. If costs are an issue you dig and build a single teir of seats on the northern end. You can make a single tier in a horseshoe. Yes, I'm aware that endzone seats are not prefered but it makes more sense to spend less money to build your cheapest seats. The fact there is substantial vertical seats shows they are not serious (or smart) about saving dollars. Single tier as much as you can is the way to go. You can provide various ammenties and design features to break up the seating.

Price sensitive fans who want a game day experience will buy the tickets. Nobody in Regina or Winnipeg complains (if the team is good), it is more about the height and angles of endzone seats IMO versus the seats being 15 yards back versus an American Football stadium.

In the modern age it's about the premium options. Giving 10k fans the experience that is marginally better than going to a U Sports game isn't going to be sustainable. Once the new car smells wears off and if the team performs poorly, and/or weather becomes unpredictable fans will just watch at home versus sitting on some bleachers in the wind and cold.

CFL'S biggest competition is the TV as there is very little incentive to pay some of the prices you see to go watch a game when you're TV has HD and a warm couch to sit on and much more affordable beer.

In the USA, new modern stadiums have been pushing to expand ammenties and the fan experience as they understand they are competing with TV and other entertainment options. For some reason Canada has been slow to this. I partly blame the dominance of hockey in Canada as likely, many sports industry executive professionals who advise on such things come from a world of irrational demand for the product where fans (hockey) will take dog food and warm beer and be content.

I fully understand Halifax is working with a shoestring budget but you can be very thrifty with design and still get a good end result. MLS is full for examples of cheap stadiums that balance fan experience and the needed requirements of the team from both operations and revenues standpoints.

Salt Lake City is a comparable city to Halifax in regards to its size and metro, their MLS stadium was built on the cheap for about $160 CDN when converted and adjusted:



-Layton Construction

You can notice there is minimal upper deck as going vertical adds considerable costs. What likely happened was the necessary addition of media or skyboxes created a natural support point to add a small deck and they put very minimal upper decks in place similar to what Regina did with Mosiac.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by osmo

Canadian stadium trends are odd. If costs are an issue you dig and build a single teir of seats on the northern end. You can make a single tier in a horseshoe. Yes, I'm aware that endzone seats are not prefered but it makes more sense to spend less money to build your cheapest seats. The fact there is substantial vertical seats shows they are not serious (or smart) about saving dollars. Single tier as much as you can is the way to go. You can provide various ammenties and design features to break up the seating.

Price sensitive fans who want a game day experience will buy the tickets. Nobody in Regina or Winnipeg complains (if the team is good), it is more about the height and angles of endzone seats IMO versus the seats being 15 yards back versus an American Football stadium.

In the modern age it's about the premium options. Giving 10k fans the experience that is marginally better than going to a U Sports game isn't going to be sustainable. Once the new car smells wears off and if the team performs poorly, and/or weather becomes unpredictable fans will just watch at home versus sitting on some bleachers in the wind and cold.

CFL'S biggest competition is the TV as there is very little incentive to pay some of the prices you see to go watch a game when you're TV has HD and a warm couch to sit on and much more affordable beer.

In the USA, new modern stadiums have been pushing to expand ammenties and the fan experience as they understand they are competing with TV and other entertainment options. For some reason Canada has been slow to this. I partly blame the dominance of hockey in Canada as likely, many sports industry executive professionals who advise on such things come from a world of irrational demand for the product where fans (hockey) will take dog food and warm beer and be content.

I fully understand Halifax is working with a shoestring budget but you can be very thrifty with design and still get a good end result. MLS is full for examples of cheap stadiums that balance fan experience and the needed requirements of the team from both operations and revenues standpoints.

Salt Lake City is a comparable city to Halifax in regards to its size and metro, their MLS stadium was built on the cheap for about $160 CDN when converted and adjusted:



-Layton Construction

You can notice there is minimal upper deck as going vertical adds considerable costs. What likely happened was the necessary addition of media or skyboxes created a natural support point to add a small deck and they put very minimal upper decks in place similar to what Regina did with Mosiac.

Salt Lake City in terms of metro is actually similarly sized to Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton. It's way bigger than Halifax.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't know that Halifax needs another 10,000 ish arena, does it? The Metro Centre (or whatever it is called) is in decent shape, is it not?

Opened in 1978, I think it is ok, rink pad, seats, ice plant and roof have been replaced within the last few years. Now known as (uggh) Scotiabank Centre.

Saw my first real concert there, April Wine around 1980 (opened by Red Rider later Tom Cochrane & Red Rider) Somewhat ironic now that Cochrane is part of the ownership group.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think it may be true that there aren't huge amounts of dollars behind the team, but the climate in the community will be very different from what it was in Ottawa with the Renegades.

The Renegades were the focus of a huge amount of cynicism not only vis-à-vis the CFL in the city but also about the owners, the Glieberman family of Michigan. Who were actually very rich but were at their second try at owning a CFL club in Ottawa - they owned the Rough Riders as well at the end of their existence and that ended up being as disastrous as the Renegades foray was.

A CFL team in Halifax will almost certainly begin its life within a much more positive, upbeat attitude in the community and that new car shine will help them through the early years, even if success on the field is not always there. (And it's not that hard to build a strong team in the CFL, as we've seen with the Redblacks.)

Agree

[elly63]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

Is the $130 million for a 12,000 seat stadium or a 26,000 seat stadium?

I don't think we know that for sure yet. We're making assumptions on things that probably aren't resolved or been discussed yet. Things like will it actually be 26k or will they start without the 4K "temp" seats.

[esquire]

At one time stadiums in Canada used to be all about maxing out the number of seats in between the goal lines as those were perceived as the most saleable. That's why Winnipeg and Regina added upper decks in the 70s instead of going for the low hanging fruit and filling in end zones... the main grandstands literally ended right at the goal lines, that's how disinterested they were in endzone seats. Edmonton took it to the greatest extreme by building a stadium with enormous quantities of sideline seats but almost no endzone seats.

The culture shifted and was no doubt influenced by watching the NFL on TV...having the wraparound endzone seating areas became synonymous with the "big time". I recall David Asper stumping for a new stadium in Winnipeg 12 years ago and promising that it would have wraparound endzone seating. Which we ended up getting even though endzone seats are not that great.

IMO a good compromise is something like McMahon in Calgary where most of the seats are between the goal lines but the main grandstands continue past the goal lines into the end zone. This way you get endzone seating that still has some of the appeal of sideline seats, and you can concentrate it all in two grandstands without having to add a third with all of its own infrastructure. Plus it looks good on TV as there is a backdrop of seats and fans in the endzone area, instead of the empty area we used to see past the goal lines. The Halifax proposal accomplishes all of that and it looks good.

[elly63]

I think Hamilton, Regina and Ottawa have found pretty good solutions to the end zone issue with their party decks

[osmo]

IMO the "horseshoe" or bowl became the style of football stadiums in the USA as you could build it quickly and cheaply (it was also easy to expand, you could start with a horseshoe or Commonwealth design and fill out the bowl as needed). I look at classic college stadiums that predate the rump NFL which in its early days wasn't the classic league of football. CFL and USA college have more history.

In college you have the Cotton Bowl, Pitts Stadium (RIP), Rose Bowl, Michigan Stadium, Notre Dame Stadium, these are classic and historical stadiums that all have a similar pattern of design. The horseshoe and bowl came about due to resources, easily expandable with time, and because it did Infact provide for the best atmosphere. No other sport aside from baseball does homefield advantage matter more than in football.

I believe the romance of football stadia comes from the USA college world more so than the NFL. CFL has more shared history with US college football than the NFL IMO. Quirky stadiums were a long standing product of both football organizations.

IMO the "quintessential" football stadium was Pitt Stadium which was placed within the campus and community to have intimacy, good seating capacity, simple venue to showcase the sport.

[osmo]

[QUOTE=elly63;8525778]I think Hamilton, Regina and Ottawa have found pretty good solutions to the end zone issue with their party decks[Quote]

I agree, best approach they took maximize otherwise dead (non revenue space).

Regina with the tierd approach maximizes the endzone space to the it's limit which is good for the fan experience and revenues.

USA approach has been to create new "premium" type boxes or club suites that mirror bunker suites in the end zone. Seattle and Dallas started this with Atlanta taking it to its maximum. Not sure if Canada is culturally inline with that style yet or in general. From a revenue standpoint though it was smart as you took the cheapest seats and made them premium.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by elly63

I think Hamilton, Regina and Ottawa have found pretty good solutions to the end zone issue with their party decks

Agreed though in Ottawa at least, one end of the stadium still has a grassy knoll behind the end zone, with a narrow walkway just above it. The other end has the party deck with a condo building right there towering above it.