Halifax Stadium Discussion

[wespidel]

Whether or not Halifax decides to build a Sue Uteck Special mickey mouse replacement free gift stadium for Saint Marys and Soccer NS at Saint Marys or Dexter`s govt. decides to continue to rob the public at the pumps or does what it should and gives back some of their 450 million dollar plus surplus money grab they took from us while taking advantage of high gas prices and capitalizing on their tax on tax gas tax along with their 2 % HST hike.

Also if I was Ottawa I would make it clear to Dexter`s govt., if you want 47 million and more now for your New Convention Centre then Premier Dexter you need to commit to a major stadium in Halifax or no deal. It can`t be all one way Premier Dexter!

[wespidel]

Sixteen in my opinion is stilll much better than 23 councillors plus the Mayor! It will be interesting to see if the city finally moves in a much more productive direction in relation to approving business development in the downtown and throughout HRM. I personally believe HRM by Design has driven business out of Halifax in a huge way and consequently has destroyed the economic development downtown. I believe it`s time for the new city council in my opinion to demolish HRM by Design or refine it to enable Halifax to start looking like a city and not a village! Halifax certainly needs the growth and the city needs to relieve the property owners from huge increased taxes and start collecting more from commerical development.


Hopefully as well, there will be a more positive team of new councillors where their approach will demonstrate a modern ideology that will result in faster decisions to grow the future of our city and create more jobs and opportunity to attract economic growth and prosperity.


PS. On my last post and previuos posts, yes I`m I have a strong opinion and send my message loud and clear but I also have many. many people that agree with me totally including current city councillors who I have talked to and also support my strong opinions, all in a effort to see the city of Halifax and the province to do much better in relation to high taxes and the economy than they are currently doing.

PS. Stadium views, I feel very strong about and dug in and I also have a lot of support from current city councillors and many residents of Halifax and other Nova Scotians who totally support my efforts and opinions and feel I`m right on in relation to a modestly priced 25 to 30 thousand permanent seat stadium, expandable to 50 thousand, CFL model type 100 million dollar plus facility!

[fenwick16]

This article was posted in Halifax News Net by Mayor Kelly on July 27th (yesterday).

(source: http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Opinion...-stadium-now/1 )

Let's move forward with a new stadium, now

Peter Kelly
Published on July 27, 2011

Next week, we will learn whether Halifax Regional Municipality will be taking another step along the road to acquiring a new stadium. I believe we must because such a structure would be a sustainable and viable asset for the residents of our community.

This journey began in spring, when council began its due-diligence by authorizing a detailed consultation and business planning analysis. The process also involved the appointment of a citizen-led steering committee to provide advice and direction to staff. Part of the committee's mandate was to hold a series of consultations with potential stakeholders including residents, financial partners, and sports and recreation groups.

On Tuesday, the committee reports back to council with its findings and a recommendation whether we should go to the second phase, namely, create a business plan. I believe we should.
.
.
.

It is great to see that Mayor Kelly continues to support the stadium construction.

I thought that the second phase would be the site selection and stadium design phase (not the business plan as in the article). Then the third phase would be the start of construction (in early 2012). If this all goes according to schedule then a stadium could be under construction within 6 months.

[wespidel]

I will send you Fenwick some important info by private email that may determine the income of what type of facility will be built, stay tuned you all!

[wespidel]

I don`t want to break my promise and jeopardize a trusting reltionship I have established with a very important person who has trusted me with providing me some important information, who also could play a significant role in the outcome of a major stadium being built, versus a mickey mouse 30 million dollar or an inadequate 60 million dollar facility. So I will remain silent and let it all enfold!

[fenwick16]

Many of us have waited 30 years to see a stadium built in the HRM, so we can wait a bit longer for the official news; whether it be a $30 million dollar stadium or a $60 million dollar stadium.

[wespidel]

The process begins!

[wespidel]

Mayor Kelly has received it on his desk and it will be discussed at council August 2/20011 and on community TV and on line live!

[CorbeauNoir]

You know you can just edit your posts to add information, right? It's a little annoying seeing you quadruple-post one-sentence comments.

[beyeas]

So... the preferred choice by the committee seems to be (in my initial read of the document) a 10000+ (and their suggestion in fact seems to be 14,000) seat stadium that is exapandable in future has the best business case):

"The market will support a facility of 10,000 permanent seats. However, it is essential that a facility of this size be expandable both on a temporary basis (to 20,000 seats) as well as on a permanent basis should a future business case support the incremental capital cost of additional permanent infrastructure. A fully built-out grandstand base building with a range of building occupancies including potential lease space, offices, and the potential for shared services with other on-site or nearby recreation facilities, is a central feature of the stadium."

In another section they claim that this represents:
"Best Value for Money - ease of incremental expansion is critical attribute; variant exists for additional permanent seating with limited operational impact; Development of a campus with potential for placing track and field and other training /playing surfaces adjacent will maximize event appeal of the venue."

"Consideration should be given to the merits of constructing to a higher permanent seat count (in the order of 13,000 to 14,000 seats). Whilst incurring a higher initial capital cost, this would not translate into an unduly significant increase in operating costs. It is possible that with the additional incremental capital cost to achieve greater than 10,000 permanent seats, the facility could either attract additional events or solidify its competitive position in Atlantic Canada. In addition, the higher permanent seat count translates into a lower temporary seat cost for those events which are successfully attracted to the facility and which require temporary seats to achieve the desired additional capacity."

Although I am a bit disappointed that they didn't recommend a 25k seat stadium right away, I have some hope given the fact that they made efforts to reinforce that this must be expandable for future commercial franchises.

"Expandability as a core opportunity and a business case expectation.
The essential requirement for expandability of this stadium should inform the design specifics, the location, the scale of original building systems, as well as represent an operating principle of the facility. Expandability relates to both capacities to expand on a temporary basis (additional seating) which maintains a high quality spectator environment as well as permanent expansion of seating and facility services.
Allied to this expansion capacity, the stadium should be capable (via expansion) of accommodating a commercial sports franchise.
Expansion capacity should not be restricted to the stadium itself but should include scalability off-site: sufficient regional access, parking, and an integrated transportation solution to enable the site and surrounds to handle large volumes of spectators attending major games or events."


http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...02ca3iicow.pdf

[wespidel]

Or listen to anymore important and Dexter`s govt. decided to walk away from supporting a major stadium, so you mickey mouse stadium supporters, I hope you are happy because it`s looks like you are going to get your replacement Saint Marys, Sue Uteck mickey mouse Speical. It`s a joke an embarrassment to a city the size of Halifax and the province.


What a waste of money and time, Moncton you have no worries Halifax will have the same tiny little stadium that you have that`s going nowheres!

[q12]

Originally Posted by beyeas

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...02ca3iicow.pdf

That is a lot of information to read...

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by beyeas

So... the preferred choice by the committee seems to be (in my initial read of the document) a 10000+ (and their suggestion in fact seems to be 14,000) seat stadium that is exapandable in future has the best business case):

"The market will support a facility of 10,000 permanent seats. However, it is essential that a facility of this size be expandable both on a temporary basis (to 20,000 seats) as well as on a permanent basis should a future business case support the incremental capital cost of additional permanent infrastructure. A fully built-out grandstand base building with a range of building occupancies including potential lease space, offices, and the potential for shared services with other on-site or nearby recreation facilities, is a central feature of the stadium."

In another section they claim that this represents:
"Best Value for Money - ease of incremental expansion is critical attribute; variant exists for additional permanent seating with limited operational impact; Development of a campus with potential for placing track and field and other training /playing surfaces adjacent will maximize event appeal of the venue."

"Consideration should be given to the merits of constructing to a higher permanent seat count (in the order of 13,000 to 14,000 seats). Whilst incurring a higher initial capital cost, this would not translate into an unduly significant increase in operating costs. It is possible that with the additional incremental capital cost to achieve greater than 10,000 permanent seats, the facility could either attract additional events or solidify its competitive position in Atlantic Canada. In addition, the higher permanent seat count translates into a lower temporary seat cost for those events which are successfully attracted to the facility and which require temporary seats to achieve the desired additional capacity."

Although I am a bit disappointed that they didn't recommend a 25k seat stadium right away, I have some hope given the fact that they made efforts to reinforce that this must be expandable for future commercial franchises.

"Expandability as a core opportunity and a business case expectation.
The essential requirement for expandability of this stadium should inform the design specifics, the location, the scale of original building systems, as well as represent an operating principle of the facility. Expandability relates to both capacities to expand on a temporary basis (additional seating) which maintains a high quality spectator environment as well as permanent expansion of seating and facility services.
Allied to this expansion capacity, the stadium should be capable (via expansion) of accommodating a commercial sports franchise.
Expansion capacity should not be restricted to the stadium itself but should include scalability off-site: sufficient regional access, parking, and an integrated transportation solution to enable the site and surrounds to handle large volumes of spectators attending major games or events."


http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...02ca3iicow.pdf

Very good summary beyeas. I think that the report was very well done. It honestly points out the difficulty of analyzing a business case for a major stadium prior to having a professional sports tenant.

I can't agree with the analysis of some of the "promoter views" (some of which we have already seen posted on this forum). The following section is from page 57 of the report which was a summary of a discussion with concert promoters - http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...02ca3iicow.pdf )

Scale of the Stadium - Even if market conditions were better, the proposed Stadium is very large. Participants felt that making it a feasible location for major live events will require investment which would be better spent on existing sites. Venues need to be “right sized” for the market. The current need is not for a large event site but for a building capable of seating between 7,000 and 12,000. Another site for large events may have a negative impact on the existing Commons and Garrison sites;

Venue Planning - Participants believe that there is a need to make all venue decisions in the context of a comprehensive, long-term plan for live venues in the HRM;

Possible Uses for the Stadium - Participants recognized that the Stadium could have a role as an occasional site for civic and ethno-cultural celebrations. It would be a safe and secure event site with adequate public amenities. Participants also recognized that such uses, while desirable at a civic level, would not contribute significantly to the business case for the Stadium; and

Role of HRM - Participants believe that HRM’s role is to provide efficient facilities and that it should not be involved in underwriting events. HRM’s goal should be to make the existing venues better for both the presenters and the audiences. In this regard, providing adequate infrastructure is key. HRM should also strive to be a user-friendly provider and facilitate the use of its venues and sites.

This section on promoters' views just full of contradictions (this is not a criticism of the writers of the report but the "experts", i.e. promoters that it came from).
First of all - "Another site for large events may have a negative impact on the existing Commons and Garrison sites;". This doesn't make sense to me - is building a stadium going to put the Commons and Garrison Grounds out of business; won't they just go on serving their purpose as urban parks?
Second - "It would be a safe and secure event site with adequate public amenities. Participants also recognized that such uses, while desirable at a civic level, would not contribute significantly to the business case for the Stadium" That makes no sense - so a stadium would be good for civic events, just not concerts
Third - "Participants believe that HRM’s role is to provide efficient facilities and that it should not be involved in underwriting events. HRM’s goal should be to make the existing venues better for both the presenters and the audiences. In this regard, providing adequate infrastructure is key." There are so many contradiction here that it is mind-boggling; this seems to be an argument in favour of a stadium but it seems to be used against.

The problem with taking the advice of concert promoters is that their purpose is to make money and they may not care if people have to stand for hours, sit on wet grass, or use smelly, disgusting, portable toilets. In my opinion, it should not be concert promoters that decide, it is the thousands of concert-goers who should decide on their preferential concert location. Cities that have stadiums use them for large concerts instead of using urban parks with few amenities.


Except for the concert promoter views, I agree with most of the report with one more exception - it states that a permanent 20,000 seat stadium is not suitable for the CFL. In my opinion, an expandable, 20,000 permanent seat stadium might very well be enough to entice a potential owner to locate a team in Halifax whereas a 10,000 seat stadium may be a signal to potential CFL owners that the HRM isn't serious about hosting a CFL team.


PS: The recommendations from both the citizens group, and the Sierra Group report is to proceed with the next phase, phase 2 - the stadium planning and site selection.

[q12]

From: http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...02ca3iicow.pdf

Canadian Football League (CFL)
In order to accommodate a Canadian Football League franchise, the following specifications and league
preferences must be considered:
 A minimum of 25,000 permanent seats are required;
 In order to host a Grey Cup event, the capacity to expand to 40,000 seats is required;
 All field dimensions should be uniform and according CFL requirements which generally include:
o The overall length of the field (goal areas included) from the inside of one deadline to the
inside of the other deadline shall be 150 yards (137.16m);
o The length of the field of play from the field side of one goal line to the field side of the
other goal line shall be 110 yards (100.58m);
o The width of the playing field from the inside of one sideline to the inside of the other
sideline shall be 65 yards (59.4m); and
o The length of the goal area from the field side of the goal line to the inside of the deadline
shall be 20 yards (18.3m);
 Artificial turf fields are recommended due to the weather and maintenance issues in maintaining
natural grass fields;
 Turf fields should be planned with a consideration of mixed use requirements, such as soccer,
lacrosse, rugby;
 Track & field configurations are not compatible for the League’s desire to create an intimate
seating bowl; and
 Facility design is encouraged to consider secondary revenue streams.

These are some good points, however the seating capacity should not be a minimum of 25,000 (more like 20,000-25,000).

Major League Soccer (MLS)
In order to accommodate a Major League Soccer franchise, the following specifications and league
preferences must be considered:
 A minimum of 18,000 permanent seats is required;
 MLS recommends that seating is located as close to the field as possible to create an intense and
intimate atmosphere in the stadium, therefore, inclusion of a running track on the inside of the
stadium is strongly discouraged. The preferred viewing distance is 492 feet (150m) from the
furthest point of play;
 MLS requires a natural grass playing surface. In conditions where this is not practical, any
permanent artificial surface used must meet Category 4 FIFA standards;
 MLS requires the playing field to accommodate a playing area of 225 feet (68.6m) in width and 360
feet (109.7m) in length. This will allow the facility to host MLS Special Events (e.g. Championship
and All-Star Games), Soccer United Marketing events and FIFA competitions. However, MLS playing
areas can range between 210 - 225 feet (64 – 68.6m) width and 330 - 360 feet (100.5 – 109.7m) in
length; and
 A downtown location is preferred.

Interesting that the MLS prefers a downtown location.

Any franchise developed in Atlantic Canada would represent the single Atlantic Canada team in the CFL for
the foreseeable future, and while this would likely extend the market area capture, the overall distribution
of the population is a limiting factor in supporting a team – spread, as it is over 4 provinces.
HRM has a number of strengths as a base for a CFL franchise including:
 Status as principal corporate and financial centre in Atlantic Canada;
 Moderate population base in the immediate region;
 Presence of significant hosting infrastructure, international airport, and retained wealth in the
Province; and
 Lack of competition – unlike similar sized markets in Ontario and elsewhere, an existing franchise
does not exist in the East and hence there is no potential for cannibalization of markets.
These attributes are important to the success of a franchise whose revenue model is based primarily on
ticket sales plus significant secondary sources of revenue from the corporate market and from advertising.
Expansion in the east is a stated aim of the CFL contingent on the viability of a franchise being
demonstrated and its contribution to the overall health and wellbeing of the league in financial terms.
Even in the absence of an existing business case for a franchise in Atlantic Canada, the League recognizes
the qualitative benefits of a league that is geographically national in reach.
Models which have been utilized for CFL franchises are varied and include:
1. Private ownership; and
2. Community ownership.
In terms of the business arrangements with a hosting facility, while some models have included the
franchise as an investor in the facility through capital contributions in exchange for facility management
rights, the traditional base business model is a lease arrangement with the facility. In the case of HRM, it is
likely that any viable CFL franchise would operate, at least initially, as a tenant in a facility with seating
capacity of 24,000-25,000 seats already constructed.

That is a strong case for a CFL team in Halifax.

That report is almost 300 pages!

[q12]

From: http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...02ca3iicow.pdf

1) Do Nothing
Or Build
Temporary

2) Build
Minimally
for the FIFA
Tournament

3) Develop
Grandstandbased
Permanent
Seating
Facility
Build 10,000 to 14,000

4) 20,000
Permanent
Seats
Build all of the seating to
permanent standard with
grandstands per above and
additional seating at
opposing ends of the field.

5) 25,000
Permanent
Seat Stadium
Building of a stadium
capable of hosting a CFL
franchise.

I like option 4 instead of 3 that they are recommending except I would make all permanent seating on the sidelines, so the stadium is expandable for the Grey Cup and also to allow for more permanent seating in the future. Even 18,000 would be better than the 10,000 -14,000 option so it's at least MLS ready.

[CorbeauNoir]

MLS ready? I think it'd be awesome if Halifax had an MLS team but it's probably about as feasable as Halifax getting an NHL team...

[isaidso]

Are they really considering anything less than 25,000 permanent seats? Really?

[Waye Mason]

Well, interesting, there were 12 concert promoters and entertainment professionals from vastly different companies and views who all agreed on almost every major point at the session I was at. I would think that the people who are actually experts in the field would have views that would be respected.

The operators who invest the money and take the risk said "a stadium does not help us." No one wanted a stadium to be built because "it will attract concerts" because it won't.

To the last point, the issue for the promoters was that we want HRM to make sure there is adequate money to maintain existing infrastructure, not invest money in concerts directly. The fear with the stadium is that the $250-500 thousand dollar a year deficit it will create is going to pound the recapitalization projects and operations funding from HMC, Forum, Sportsplex and Alderney, making them even worse off than they already are.

I think this is the right size. We can probably afford to build it. I have worries about maintaining and operating it.

At 10-14K seats, we ARE back at doing it at Husky.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

At 10-14K seats, we ARE back at doing it at Husky.

That is where I disagree with you. It would be that IF they were saying that this should not be expandable to minimum 20,000 permanent seats in the future. That simply isn't feasible on the husky site.

I would have been very disappointed if the recommended a 10000 seat fixed structure with no expansion. However, building 10-14k now designed to be able to expand in the future if a professional team comes is fine. Doing means that is can't be done at husky stadium site, because it is just too small.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Well, interesting, there were 12 concert promoters and entertainment professionals from vastly different companies and views who all agreed on almost every major point at the session I was at. I would think that the people who are actually experts in the field would have views that would be respected.

The operators who invest the money and take the risk said "a stadium does not help us." No one wanted a stadium to be built because "it will attract concerts" because it won't.

To the last point, the issue for the promoters was that we want HRM to make sure there is adequate money to maintain existing infrastructure, not invest money in concerts directly. The fear with the stadium is that the $250-500 thousand dollar a year deficit it will create is going to pound the recapitalization projects and operations funding from HMC, Forum, Sportsplex and Alderney, making them even worse off than they already are.

I think this is the right size. We can probably afford to build it. I have worries about maintaining and operating it.

At 10-14K seats, we ARE back at doing it at Husky.

Luckily the people who wrote the report understand that one main goal is to be a host city for the FIFA Womens' Cup which requires 20,000 seats.

(source: page 70 of the report (or page 92/293 of the pdf file - http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...02ca3iicow.pdf or page )

In the context of this analysis, an assessment has been undertaken of the capacity to redesign an existing facility in the City to achieve the 20,000 seat specifications for the FIFA world cup event, as well as a legacy design which provides for a major venue for major spectator sports events within HRM. The results of this analysis demonstrate that a comfortable expansion of the seating at the facility is achievable if the track is removed. This could yield approximately 13,900 seats. It does not meet the FIFA requirements.

The value of partnerships (for example with the Universities) may dictate locational considerations. Whether a space restricted site is a tenable option depends on the commitments to utilization of the facility by the Universities or other institutions involved in any partnership, and the terms of risk-sharing in both capital and operating. Typically, these are aspects of detail which are not addressed in concept planning. However, it is important that Phase 2 of the process (site location) addresses these questions in order to accurately measure the costs and benefits of alternative sites.