Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Franco401

Much like the NHL sailed on Winnipeg in 1996, the Bay Area in 1974 and Ohio in 1976?

The Bay Area (California Golden Seals) lost their team in 1976, and Ohio (Cleveland Barons) lost their team in 1978. Having said that, I would love to see Hamilton get an NHL franchise, but the likelihood of that happening is not good. There is just too much money in the GTA, and potential ownership groups, who want a second team in the suburbs of Toronto, and have the money to build a 18,000 seat arena (i.e. Markham or Vaughan), that will prevent that from happening.

Winnipeg was extremely lucky that we had an ownership group that did their due diligence, and played by the NHL rules, as Atlanta and Phoenix were without local ownership, and in the Atlanta case, were without a home. The sad thing is that if Balsillie had acted like Chipman, and not rubbed the NHL owners the wrong way, the Hamilton area would ahve had an NHL team by 2009 at the latest.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

The sad thing is that if Balsillie had acted like Chipman, and not rubbed the NHL owners the wrong way, the Hamilton area would ahve had an NHL team by 2009 at the latest.

Wouldn't have made a difference. Despite what the NHL says about the Leafs and Sabres not having any veto power, they would've stirred up shit to block it.

Anyone can come in now and make an attempt to put a team in Hamilton( in a market which is as safe a best as you can get) and play by the rules - yet no one has. You have to ask yourself why that is - might have something to do with them knowing it's a lost cause.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by q12

https://twitter.com/DerekBySEA/statu...79749650378752

Such a great location for a popup stadium.

[isaidso]

I've always wondered whether a stadium would fit in that spot. Too bad it's only big enough for a small one as it's a fantastic location due to its proximity to downtown.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I've always wondered whether a stadium would fit in that spot. Too bad it's only big enough for a small one as it's a fantastic location due to its proximity to downtown.

It could easily fit with a bit of road realignment and redevelopment of adjacent lots. The only major building nearby is the natural history museum which leaves quite a large north-south distance. Bell Road could be moved onto the Citadel land a bit where there is currently an big open grassy event space (which would be somewhat redundant if there were a stadium next door).

One block away there's also somewhere in the range of 500-1,000 parking spots in parkades, and two blocks away is the busiest bus corridor in the city. More parking could be built into Citadel Hill if needed.

There are no immediately adjacent residents to annoy.

It's an amazing spot for a stadium. Basically as good as it gets in an existing urban setting.

[king10]

nice little stadium. too bad the light posts are in front of the grandstand though.

[Airboy]

Apparently some major upgrades to Commonwealth Stadium in the next 3 years. These were planned before the WC announcement. And if the decision to use Commonwealth does go ahead there will be substantially more upgrades.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by king10

nice little stadium. too bad the light posts are in front of the grandstand though.

That is a little strange, I haven't seen that before.

[king10]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

That is a little strange, I haven't seen that before.

I've seen it in some rare situations with older or temporary stadiums. Definitely not the norm though.

[steve61]

Originally Posted by Airboy

Apparently some major upgrades to Commonwealth Stadium in the next 3 years. These were planned before the WC announcement. And if the decision to use Commonwealth does go ahead there will be substantially more upgrades.

Can you be more specific or maybe have a link?

[blueandgoldguy]

I wonder if it's feasible to put some upper deck concourses on both sides of the
Commonwealth stadium as part of the upgrades? It only has one concourse that while decent in size becomes congested when there are more than 30,000 at a game. An upper deck with the requisite concessions and washrooms would relieve some of that, especially when crowds reach 40,000 - 50,000 range.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by steve61

Can you be more specific or maybe have a link?

Sorry cannot get more detail. It was a report that mentioned the renos. The City of Edmonton is doing a number of energy upgrades on facilities and this might be one of them. Plus the building age does have some areas that are at the end of operational life.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

I wonder if it's feasible to put some upper deck concourses on both sides of the
Commonwealth stadium as part of the upgrades? It only has one concourse that while decent in size becomes congested when there are more than 30,000 at a game. An upper deck with the requisite concessions and washrooms would relieve some of that, especially when crowds reach 40,000 - 50,000 range.

They did expand the concourses somewhat by adding on to them before the 2001 IAAF games. I was never there prior to that expansion and I can't imagine how congested it must have been when there were large crowds. As much as I love Commonwealth, I think that the compact concourse area relative to the stadium's large capacity is probably one of its weaker points.

I'm not sure how a separate upper deck concourse would work given how the stadium is designed... I can't see it happening without a massive expenditure. But it would sure make a difference.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by esquire

They did expand the concourses somewhat by adding on to them before the 2001 IAAF games. I was never there prior to that expansion and I can't imagine how congested it must have been when there were large crowds. As much as I love Commonwealth, I think that the compact concourse area relative to the stadium's large capacity is probably one of its weaker points.

I'm not sure how a separate upper deck concourse would work given how the stadium is designed... I can't see it happening without a massive expenditure. But it would sure make a difference.

Yes, that is what I am curious about - the cost of concourse expansion.

[Wpg_Guy]

Investors group field this week

MB marathon


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....14265088_n.jpg


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....35103232_n.jpg

Home opener Blue Bombers


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....14150400_n.jpg


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....06097920_n.jpg


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....53270016_n.jpg


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....26424064_n.jpg

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by WpG_GuY

Investors group field this week

MB marathon


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....14265088_n.jpg


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....35103232_n.jpg

Home opener Blue Bombers


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....14150400_n.jpg


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....06097920_n.jpg


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....53270016_n.jpg


https://instagram.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn....26424064_n.jpg

I hope the Bombers can change one of the endzone seating sections to a partydeck similar to the Pilsner endzone section in Regina or the party endzone area in Ottawa and Hamilton. 33,000 seats is too much for the Bombers needs and is rarely filled bringing it down to around 29,500 would make the place look much better and fuller.

[Wpg_Guy]

^ They did add some viewing decks last season

Bombers brass stand and deliver to the young'uns
Paul Wiecek By: Paul Wiecek
Posted: 06/16/2017

It’s the question marketers for sports teams have been puzzling about most in recent years:

How do you convince a generation raised by smartphones to have an attention span of 140 characters to sit still for three hours to watch a live sporting event?

The answer — or at least part of it — is to take away their seats and tell them they don’t have to sit at all.

Fans attending Thursday night’s Winnipeg Blue Bombers pre-season game at Investors Group Field were greeted with a new sight this season: The team has ripped out five rows of seats at the top of four sections in the stadium’s north end zone and erected signs promising "Viewing Deck Coming Soon."

Those four viewing decks will join four other new viewing decks the team installed elsewhere on the main concourse over the winter that were fully operational Thursday.

Why would the Bombers rip out more than 800 perfectly good seats from a stadium that's barely four years old and replace them with standing room only?

"There are some people who just want to socialize at games... That’s what the new fan wants in entertainment," Bombers CEO Wade Miller told me Friday morning.

Indeed, it’s all part of the same reason Miller installed five phone-charging stations a couple years ago: because younger people don’t watch sporting events the same way we all used to and teams in desperate need of their dollars will either change with the times or be left with nothing but people with grey hair in the stands (more on that in a moment).

Right now, the unfinished viewing decks in the north end zone consist of nothing more than concrete risers where the seats used to be. The team expects to have railings installed in time for fans to take a stand at the July 7 home-opener.

The eight viewing decks are a solution to a couple of problems that have been self-evident since IGF opened in 2013:

With seating for more than 33,000, the stadium is overbuilt for the Bombers' needs. As well, the concourse generally, but in particular near the Rum Hut in the stadium’s north end, is not nearly big enough to accommodate the crush of fans who would rather stand and socialize during games.

It’s all an acknowledgment of the reality that standing room-only spaces that were once the cheapest and least desirable way to watch a game are now the preferred option for many in a demographic that treats the event more like a social where you meet and mingle with friends than a movie where you’re expected to take your seat and keep it until the final credits run.

Brand-new Mosaic Stadium in Regina has gone all-in on the idea, sectioning off terraces in one end zone that are strictly standing room-only, with capacity for about 1,500.

Think about that for a second: roughly five per cent of the seats in the Saskatchewan Roughriders’ new stadium aren’t seats at all, but just places where people can hang out. If you’d pitched that idea a decade ago — when all the emphasis in stadium building was on creature comforts such as bigger, cushier seats with leather cushions, cherry-wood armrests and cupholders, you’d have been laughed at.

But today, just about every new stadium in baseball and football has sectioned off places to stand for fans who have tickets for a designated seat but in many cases never bother to find it, much less sit in it.

The Bombers, unfortunately, don’t have a stadium built for that reality, as anyone who has ever tried to make their way through the crush of people on the IGF concourses during a game can attest.

If they were building that stadium again today, the concourses would be several metres wider. And, also, surround a playing field built at a different location.

But full credit to the club’s current management — who, it’s worth remembering, had nothing to do with the myriad flaws in the original stadium design; they’re at least trying to be creative in finding ways to make a game-day experience that works for everyone.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sp...428961203.html

paul.wiecek@freepress.mb.ca

Twitter: @PaulWiecek

[Denscity]

Wow that article is massive!

[JHikka]

The Halifax Examiner is probably bias one way or the other but it does shed some light on the ongoing meetings between Maritime Football Ltd. and Halifax City council, from last night:

"The location of the stadium is up in the air. I think if the MFL people had their way, it’d be out in the Bedford Common surrounded by a sea of parking lots. But Savage and company want to sell this as a Lansdowne-like project, complete with a surrounding tax benefit district. It’s not clear that Lansdowne is the success it’s being sold as, but even if it is, there’s no comparable area in Halifax. Still, I think there’s at least a push for a peninsula site for the stadium. Maybe on Port land? I dunno.

The stadium proposal will have to be rolled out publicly at some point, so the current secrecy only serves to keep the public uninformed about the debate that will lead to it. Councillors had dozens and dozens of questions and debating points yesterday — four hours’ worth — but none of that complex politicking and compromise will ever be known. We’re supposed to just accept whatever end is reached and not question it.

This makes me think the stadium is a done deal. We’re getting a stadium, whether we want it or not."

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featu...ant-it-or-not/

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The Halifax Examiner is probably bias one way or the other but it does shed some light on the ongoing meetings between Maritime Football Ltd. and Halifax City council, from last night

This reporter tends to be really negative. Mostly I'd say he doesn't like private businesses, and tends to argue that nearly any public-private type venture in Nova Scotia is bound to waste tons of money and fail. He writes a lot (or used to write) for the local left-leaning alternative weekly and now I think this is his own site. Basically, I don't think it is possible at all for him to like a stadium proposal of any kind or to present just facts without editorializing, and his negative predictions don't mean much because he predicts that everything will fail or somehow turn out badly in the end. His stories do have useful factual nuggets in them sometimes though.

So far these details seem speculative but are consistent with what I was imagining.

I hope the city does push for a better location than a greenfield site on the urban fringe. That would be a big mistake. They also shouldn't expropriate a bunch of land downtown like in the 1960's but there is a happy medium.

I agree that the profits from mixed use stadium type developments tend to be exaggerated (mostly because the stuff that goes in the subsidized development, like condos or commercial buildings, might have been built anyway and paid full taxes without the subsidy) but then again I'm not against some public money going to a reasonable stadium (something around 25,000 seats without a lot of frills paid for by the public). There are probably not a lot of similar cities elsewhere in the developed world (approaching half a million people, and anchoring a region of about 2 million) that don't have a large stadium.