HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1201  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 7:38 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Hmm....
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 3,505
Can we please just wait until a plan or structure is announced before we give our knee-jerk "we can't afford it" response? 

Moose Jaw just built a $61M facility. Proportionally, Regina would have to build an ~$380M facility for the same affordability factor (since people seem to love making comparisons to other places). 

As for provincial support... That happens everywhere. Saskatoon's south bridge was $270 million, with a substantial kick-in from the province, same with the children's hospital, art gallery, university construction projects (I think they just announced a new $300M complex a few months ago). 

My point is not to compare funding, they are all good causes, but just to say that the province puts money everywhere and we don't complain on a daily basis about this project or that project. They do it because together we can afford more when we pool our resources. 

I think if we build an outdoor stadium we are going to regret not kicking in an extra 200 million for something more useful. Costs will only continue to climb. Commonwealth stadium in Edmonton was built for $20.9 million back in the 70s (68.4 mill) in today's dollars. Good luck ever trying to construct anything like that for that price now. 

And the province wouldn't be putting forward $200 mill or however much it ends up bring all at once; it would most likely be mortgaged over 25 years or so, which pretty much brings the impact on the provincial budget to a rounding error. 

I'm not saying we should just be willy-nilly and start committing funds everywhere, but something like this is only constructed once in a lifetime in Canada (different story in the states it seems), but let's let this play out and see what comes out of the discussions/planning process, before we just yell, "we can't afford it" without looking into it. 
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1202  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2012, 2:40 PM
micheal micheal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 415
Folks we have to remember this is more than a stadium. this goes beyond that. There is definately money out there for the developement of the cp lands. 1 billion was just invested in the harbour landing and grasslands development for example. So for people saying there is no money for this type of development is bull. This downtown land is not just going to be about a stadium. it will also be about commercial and residential developement. So at the end of the day lets waite until we get more info and who the partners will be before we start making crazy assumptions and statements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1203  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 12:43 AM
Twrlvr Twrlvr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Regina
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
"I think if we build an outdoor stadium we are going to regret not kicking in an extra 200 million for something more useful."
I absolutely agree with that point. Sure, a dome is expensive, but doesn't the fact that an open stadium sits idle 98% of the time make it just as expensive, relatively speaking? No offence to S'toon here, but it really irks me to see that long string of tail lights heading north for every major concert or other event held at CUC. For whatever reason, maybe structural, there hasn't even been a hint of expanding the Brandt Center to keep up. We need a facility to accommodate all those events that have been passing us up for a long time already, and reap the spin off spending by patrons of those from Davidson and points south. That should count for something by the city and local business interests. Also, it either must have a retractable roof, or very effective a/c for the hot weather. I vote for the convertible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1204  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 4:03 AM
Welkin Welkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twrlvr View Post
I absolutely agree with that point. Sure, a dome is expensive, but doesn't the fact that an open stadium sits idle 98% of the time make it just as expensive, relatively speaking? No offence to S'toon here, but it really irks me to see that long string of tail lights heading north for every major concert or other event held at CUC. For whatever reason, maybe structural, there hasn't even been a hint of expanding the Brandt Center to keep up. We need a facility to accommodate all those events that have been passing us up for a long time already, and reap the spin off spending by patrons of those from Davidson and points south. That should count for something by the city and local business interests. Also, it either must have a retractable roof, or very effective a/c for the hot weather. I vote for the convertible.
It has been mentioned several times before on this forum that just because you spend the money to build a facility than can be used year around does not mean that it will actually be used year around. For example, the Saddledome in the much larger city of Calgary was used for nothing but hockey in January (Flames and Hitmen and World Juniors), in February again mostly hockey plus one minor concert LMFAO and the Globetrotters, in March you have hockey and concerts by Lady Antebellum and Hedley, April just has hockey and a Coldplay concert scheduled. Besides NHL hockey, even the MTS Centre has only had Disney on Ice and WWE raw in January, two concerts in February, two concerts and circus mondo in March. If it wasn't for hockey, neither of these arenas would be all that busy during the winter.

We don't have an NHL team and a 35,000 seat facility is way to big for the Pats, so basically you spend a fortune for the ability to host a couple of events each month that could be held at the Brandt Centre. Having the ability to host large events doesn't mean squat if there aren't a lot of large events to host. The multi-purpose retractable roof stadium will cost over $200 million more (plus $10 million a year to operate and maintain) than an outdoor stadium and it will still be mainly used just by the Riders. Nine days of football and if we are really lucky another 20 events a year, means it will still stand empty 92% of the year. Saying that you want to spend your tax dollars on a really cool facility is one thing, expecting it to be used very often is something totally different.

Last edited by Welkin; Mar 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1205  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 4:24 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,441
^yup.

you are way better off building a good convention centre an outdoor stadium and arena....would cost the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1206  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 5:13 PM
skthunder77's Avatar
skthunder77 skthunder77 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
^yup.

you are way better off building a good convention centre an outdoor stadium and arena....would cost the same.
Except a new, bigger arena would likely mean we lose the Pats or it would sit completely empty because there is NO way the Pats are going to pay more to play in a bigger, emptier arena. So if the brandt stays as it is, the Pats will play there and the new arena is useless. If the brandt is replaced, you have a big fight on your hands with the Parkers. I have never understood the "build a rink and an outdoor football staduim" argument for that reason.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1207  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 5:19 PM
micheal micheal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by skthunder77 View Post
Except a new, bigger arena would likely mean we lose the Pats or it would sit completely empty because there is NO way the Pats are going to pay more to play in a bigger, emptier arena. So if the brandt stays as it is, the Pats will play there and the new arena is useless. If the brandt is replaced, you have a big fight on your hands with the Parkers. I have never understood the "build a rink and an outdoor football staduim" argument for that reason.
i dont understand that argument either. As i say again lets waite and see until more info. and the partners are revealed before we make any assumptions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1208  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 5:22 PM
skthunder77's Avatar
skthunder77 skthunder77 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by micheal View Post
i dont understand that argument either. As i say again lets waite and see until more info. and the partners are revealed before we make any assumptions.
Yep, agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1209  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 5:57 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,441
Ok. then obviously the pats can not be counted on as part of what makes a half billion dollar stadium economically sustainable....so whatever it is that proponents of a multi-use indoor facility believe will make the building viable 365 days a year can go in a new arena and leave the pats where they are....since they dont add anything to the model anyways.

fact is building two or three purpose built facilities would be a similar cost and far more effective.....a dome would really be football stadium that is less than optimal for other uses.

Last edited by trueviking; Mar 11, 2012 at 6:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1210  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 6:00 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by skthunder77 View Post
Except a new, bigger arena would likely mean we lose the Pats or it would sit completely empty because there is NO way the Pats are going to pay more to play in a bigger, emptier arena. So if the brandt stays as it is, the Pats will play there and the new arena is useless. If the brandt is replaced, you have a big fight on your hands with the Parkers. I have never understood the "build a rink and an outdoor football staduim" argument for that reason.
This is what I cannot understand. A new arena would be useless (people claim), but a multi-purpose facility would be money well spent. The arena is better suited at holding the type of events Reginans are hoping for at the MPF (concerts/moto-cross/conferences/the odd hockey game), and yet, IT would sit empty because the Pats won't play there? If the arena is going to sit empty, why is the MPF going to be full (aside from the 10 Rider's games)? This is the type of logic that I will never comprehend. As Vike says - why not specific use facilities (a beautiful $250 M stadium and $200 M arena would still cost less than this dome fantasy).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1211  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 6:38 PM
skthunder77's Avatar
skthunder77 skthunder77 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
This is what I cannot understand. A new arena would be useless (people claim), but a multi-purpose facility would be money well spent. The arena is better suited at holding the type of events Reginans are hoping for at the MPF (concerts/moto-cross/conferences/the odd hockey game), and yet, IT would sit empty because the Pats won't play there? If the arena is going to sit empty, why is the MPF going to be full (aside from the 10 Rider's games)? This is the type of logic that I will never comprehend. As Vike says - why not specific use facilities (a beautiful $250 M stadium and $200 M arena would still cost less than this dome fantasy).
WOW! You just took what I posted and went to town with some huge leaps of logic and assumptions. I said nothing of mult-purpose facilities. I just said, that a larger rink would jeopardize the Pats being in Regina.

If you want to play this game though, if you build three purpose specific facilities and one of them IS a convention centre, isn't this going to jeopardize the Queensbury or other convention spaces the same? This would be even more of a concern for Evraz place as it would threaten everything they do.

Bottom line, let's wait and see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1212  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 7:59 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by skthunder77 View Post
WOW! You just took what I posted and went to town with some huge leaps of logic and assumptions. I said nothing of mult-purpose facilities. I just said, that a larger rink would jeopardize the Pats being in Regina.

If you want to play this game though, if you build three purpose specific facilities and one of them IS a convention centre, isn't this going to jeopardize the Queensbury or other convention spaces the same? This would be even more of a concern for Evraz place as it would threaten everything they do.

Bottom line, let's wait and see.
They shouldn't jeopardize Evraz or the Queensbury CC any more than the MPF would, considering it was argued by MPF proponents that their events wouldn't compete directly. But, as you say, let's wait and see. It's only been a mere 2 years since the "feasibility" study came out, so I'm sure we'll be hearing some news real soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1213  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 9:43 PM
Twrlvr Twrlvr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Regina
Posts: 64
I won't include all the quotes here, but I'd like to comment on the last several posts.

First off, we don't need a new convention facility. Besides THE Convention Center, we also have Queensbury, Conexus AC, Eventplex, and others. Regina could host more large conventions simultaneously than hotel space would allow.

Regarding an arena, I had previously mentioned expanding the Brandt to say, 15,000. That would make us a "two stop" province for the major entertainment stuff. Is that possible, and at what cost? Also, do the Blades pay twice as much to play in their twice as big arena? These things I don't know. I do know there's no way we'll see two separate arenas.

If there was an intent to expand the Brandt at some point, I could be talked into supporting an outdoor stadium. As Bdog said, that would better suit the purposes anyway. If there was no chance of a single larger arena (Brandt), I would root for a covered MPF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1214  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 10:03 PM
blacktrojan3921's Avatar
blacktrojan3921 blacktrojan3921 is offline
Regina rhymes with fun!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 887
Plus we have to keep in mind that the Pats argument is pretty baseless when comparing it to the Hitmen and Oil Kings as both of them are owned by the same people and groups that own they're NHL counterparts, I imagine that with the huge successes of the Flames and Oilers; the Hitmen and Oil Kings don't have much to worry about when it comes to expenses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1215  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 10:13 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,441
So...you don't need a convention facility and you dont need an arena. What exactly is going to be happening in this domed stadium for the 355 days a year that the riders are not playing?

I don't understand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1216  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 10:35 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
So...you don't need a convention facility and you dont need an arena. What exactly is going to be happening in this domed stadium for the 355 days a year that the riders are not playing?

I don't understand.
This.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1217  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 12:37 AM
Twrlvr Twrlvr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Regina
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
So...you don't need a convention facility and you dont need an arena. What exactly is going to be happening in this domed stadium for the 355 days a year that the riders are not playing?

I don't understand.
I'll try to clarify it for you, from my point of view that is.

1. We don't need a convention facility. - Check.

2. If we had a dome, we wouldn't need an arena either. If we don't have a dome, it would be nice to have an expanded arena.

3. What would be happening are the entertainment events that can't perform outdoors (especially in winter), and/or those who aren't interested in our puny arena. (Brandt Centre - about 7,000 I think)

This thread is about the Multi-Purpose Facility, ie. dome, which I would love to see. It has been argued though, that there wouldn't be enough other events to make it viable. If that was the case, I'd like to see the arena expansion to accomodate the other major events. That's just a personal interest of mine, and there may not be many others who are even concerned about that aspect. I'll probably get flamed on here for talking about the arena in the first place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1218  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 3:22 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,441
^ i dont fully understand the dynamics of regina's facilities, but looking at it from the outside, it seems way more reasonable to build a proper arena to compete with the one in saskatoon....any concerts and shows that currently bypass regina do so because it does not have a 10-15000 seat venue...not because it doesnt have a 35000 seat indoor one.

most big shows that would go in a stadium are touring shows, and since edmonton, calgary and winnipeg do not have an indoor facility, what stadium tours there are do not come to western canada in the winter...in fact they dont tour anywhere in the winter.....they go in the summer when they can play all of the cities that dont have domes.

if regina builds an arena that can be reduced in size for the pats (like MTS Centre) then you will be able to compete for things like the brier, the world juniors etc.....and you will get the acts that are right now hitting other western cities.

99.9% of touring shows require a 10-15000 seat arena, not a 35000 seat stadium.

this is why i never understood the passion for a dome in winnipeg and i dont understand it in regina....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1219  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 6:12 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Hmm....
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 3,505
I took this from the original report. If they keep this option in mind in the updated/new design (however they end up planning it), then it allows for the larger concert/hockey/curling, but still allows the Pats to play out of the Brandt Centre (and allows for some smaller concerts if they want to keep them at the Brandt Centre. Plus you continue to have the Agribition completely centred at the Brandt Centre/Exhibition grounds complex.



A new arena in the 15k range isn't going to come cheaply unless you make it a bare-bones facility, which isn't really the direction most places are taking anymore. Building a new 15k arena (prob ~200m) + a new outdoor stadium (prob ~250m) would cost out around the same as a new multi-purpose stadium which I think would be more useful than two separate facilities. Not to mention that the Brandt centre just received a pretty substantial upgrade before the Juniors tournament, so ripping it apart within so few years would be a pretty big waste of money.

The thing with Winnipeg is that you already had the MTS Centre, so the Arena + Open air option (if that was the only option compared to the dome/retractable roof option) was a lot easier to fall in favour of.

No one is going to convince me it's not a good idea to build the proposed multi-purpose facility, and I won't be convincing you, Bdog, or Welkin that it is a good idea. I plan on living in Regina for the next 60 or so years anyway, so in the end, I'll be paying for whatever decision is made. And because of this, I'll make my opinion known, and defend it if I must. But in any case, it's really no skin off your back since the only government funding is going to come from Saskatchewan and the City of Regina.

Last edited by Nathan; Mar 12, 2012 at 6:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1220  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 12:08 PM
Dalreg's Avatar
Dalreg Dalreg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
I took this from the original report. If they keep this option in mind in the updated/new design (however they end up planning it), then it allows for the larger concert/hockey/curling, but still allows the Pats to play out of the Brandt Centre (and allows for some smaller concerts if they want to keep them at the Brandt Centre. Plus you continue to have the Agribition completely centred at the Brandt Centre/Exhibition grounds complex.



A new arena in the 15k range isn't going to come cheaply unless you make it a bare-bones facility, which isn't really the direction most places are taking anymore. Building a new 15k arena (prob ~200m) + a new outdoor stadium (prob ~250m) would cost out around the same as a new multi-purpose stadium which I think would be more useful than two separate facilities. Not to mention that the Brandt centre just received a pretty substantial upgrade before the Juniors tournament, so ripping it apart within so few years would be a pretty big waste of money.

The thing with Winnipeg is that you already had the MTS Centre, so the Arena + Open air option (if that was the only option compared to the dome/retractable roof option) was a lot easier to fall in favour of.

No one is going to convince me it's not a good idea to build the proposed multi-purpose facility, and I won't be convincing you, Bdog, or Welkin that it is a good idea. I plan on living in Regina for the next 60 or so years anyway, so in the end, I'll be paying for whatever decision is made. And because of this, I'll make my opinion known, and defend it if I must. But in any case, it's really no skin off your back since the only government funding is going to come from Saskatchewan and the City of Regina.
Well being from Saskatchewan, I don't want my money paying for Regina's follies....

I am amazed at this multi functioned facility mentality going on. Almost everywhere else is going away from this type of facilty, especially in MAJOR cities.

Give Regina a 15,000 seat arena. Good for concerts 5 or 10 a year, and a half dozen shows or other events.... The Riders need a good football facility. I agree 100% on that. But they don't need a white elephant in the shape of a domed stadium...
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 > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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