Stadiums and Arenas of Canada

[mylesmalley]

The only render i could find of the new stadium in moncton is this.



url: http://img.geocaching.com/cache/e5b6...818033132f.jpg



It seems rather small, but the area of the field is a good deal larger than a traditional football stadium because of the running track. It's being built for the World Track and Field Championship for 2010.

Also, keep in mind that Moncton CMA currently only has about 130,000 people.

[isaidso]

Thanks for the post. I'd been digging everywhere and coming up empty. If the eventual goal is a CFL franchise, are they considering doing away with the track after the Championships? I appreciate the significant expense involved, but if Moncton is to be successful, they need to do absolutely everything right.

Details like making the football experience as good as it can be are crucial. Moncton needs to marry the modernity of MAC's Ron Joyce Stadium with the charm and intimacy of Molson Stadium. There is very little room for missteps.

[wrenegade]

Does anyone have any good pics of the John Labatt Centre in London? I always thought that stadium was very well done when I lived there.

[mylesmalley]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Thanks for the post. I'd been digging everywhere and coming up empty. If the eventual goal is a CFL franchise, are they considering doing away with the track after the Championships? I appreciate the significant expense involved, but if Moncton is to be successful, they need to do absolutely everything right.

Details like making the football experience as good as it can be are crucial. Moncton needs to marry the modernity of MAC's Ron Joyce Stadium with the charm and intimacy of Molson Stadium. There is very little room for missteps.

Considering the design, I'd say it's unlikely that the city would do away with the track after the competition.

As for the CFL... there's been talk of that for ages. I'm not a football fan by any means but I'd still like to see it happen. If the city left the temporary seating, the UdeM stadium would be the biggest in Atlantic Canada, so I guess there's always that. The CFL is planning on playing a few exhibition games over the next year or two to gauge support as well.

[truedaniel]

Originally Posted by the dude

it's not canadian, but the sprint center in kc is spectacular:

Oh ya we just saw a SLIPKNOT!! show at the new Sprint Center in Kansas City, that is the most futuristic stadium in the US. Incredible place. You can't believe yo eyes when you look at it down the street, it looks like a UFo landed in the middle of KC! (Sorry to get off topic)

Best interior but worst location in Canada; Scotia Bank Place.
Best exterior and location in Canada: Air Canada Center, easily!

[truedaniel]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ3D

Ottawa is home to the ugliest NHL arena in the country. It's also the most American in terms of it's location outside the core and the parking lot that surrounds it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jessfli...46402/sizes/o/

Perhaps it's not the most striking building. Although the glass on an angle looks really sweet when standing in front of the place game time.
The stadium itself is grade A; easy parking, VIP parking, closes boxes to the ice in North America!, many restarunts, work out facilities, and the viewing and acoustics are superb. No doubt a pleasurable place to go to everytime!
BUT LOCATION IS UNBELIEVALBLY BAD. Unless you live in the Western suburb of Kanata, it is almost not worth going to the game to fight the traffic on the the only two routes that lead to the stadium. Should have built it on Lebreton Flats which have been sitting empty in Ottawa dowtown for 50 years!

[truedaniel]

Originally Posted by feepa

what does that have to do with anything Canadian and Stadiums? Its not even in English!

Cause some people are clueless. I wouldn't even worry about them!

[Jay in Cowtown]

Originally Posted by truedaniel

closes boxes to the ice in North America!,

I'm assuming you're talking about corporate suites... I'd say the Saddledome's are probably the closest to ice level.

[truedaniel]

Originally Posted by Jay in Cowtown

I'm assuming you're talking about corporate suites... I'd say the Saddledome's are probably the closest to ice level.

Well...boxes/corporate suites..isn't that the same thing. Just sometimes individuals lease them or sometimes companies. I know my dad's high tech firm leased one of the boxes for a season (Then the high-tech bubble burst!!)...man that was a good year for a hockey fan like me. Senators of course finished only NUMBER ONE IN THE EAST!!

Go Sens!

[wild wild west]

Originally Posted by truedaniel

Oh ya we just saw a SLIPKNOT!! show at the new Sprint Center in Kansas City, that is the most futuristic stadium in the US. Incredible place. You can't believe yo eyes when you look at it down the street, it looks like a UFo landed in the middle of KC! (Sorry to get off topic)

Best interior but worst location in Canada; Scotia Bank Place.
Best exterior and location in Canada: Air Canada Center, easily!

For best exterior of any Canadian arena, I prefer MTS Centre in Winnipeg. ACC is nice, but not unique IMO. I'd even humbly suggest our Saddledome, while not a beautiful building by any means, at least gets points for its unique design.

But that new KC arena is absolutely spectacular.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by wild wild west

For best exterior of any Canadian arena, I prefer MTS Centre in Winnipeg. ACC is nice, but not unique IMO. I'd even humbly suggest our Saddledome, while not a beautiful building by any means, at least gets points for its unique design.

But that new KC arena is absolutely spectacular.

MTS is an improvement over many arenas, but it's not a sophisticated design. It looks more at home in a medium sized city or suburbia. Winnipeg isn't a big city, but MTS certainly seems to reinforce that notion. If Winnipeg wants to be treated like a big city and gain the attention of the NHL, they need to try harder than cities like Vancouver or Toronto. They need to build an arena that smacks of 'big city' sophistication. Although not an arena, the Richmond Oval is good example of what I mean. It's architecturally brilliant and doesn't look suburban or provincial.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by isaidso

MTS is an improvement over many arenas, but it's not a sophisticated design. It looks more at home in a medium sized city or suburbia. Winnipeg isn't a big city, but MTS certainly seems to reinforce that notion. If Winnipeg wants to be treated like a big city and gain the attention of the NHL, they need to try harder than cities like Vancouver or Toronto. They need to build an arena that smacks of 'big city' sophistication. Although not an arena, the Richmond Oval is good example of what I mean. It's architecturally brilliant and doesn't look suburban or provincial.

hmmm....i dont really get your point....while i will never defend the quality of the exterior facade of the MTS centre, i dont see it as any more 'suburban' than any other new arena in canada....i dont love the facade composition, but the 'big city' arenas that you reference certainly are no better....the original design of MTS was more modernist, but to appease the group that opposed the demolition of eatons to make way, the red brick was added....to be fair, it does fit into the vernacular of winnipeg architecture.

MTS is an urban building more than most because it addresses a street on every side...there is no sea of parking or even a large plaza....GM place as an example, is urban but is suburban in its design.

i dont really think that the NHL cares what the facade of the arena looks like.

if we compare them, MTS doesnt appear any worse...even if it could have been better.

[DHLawrence]

I agree with trueviking--if anything, the MTS Centre looks more urban than suburban.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by trueviking

hmmm....i dont really get your point....while i will never defend the quality of the exterior facade of the MTS centre, i dont see it as any more 'suburban' than any other new arena in canada....i dont love the facade composition, but the 'big city' arenas that you reference certainly are no better....the original design of MTS was more modernist, but to appease the group that opposed the demolition of eatons to make way, the red brick was added....to be fair, it does fit into the vernacular of winnipeg architecture.

MTS is an urban building more than most because it addresses a street on every side...there is no sea of parking or even a large plaza....GM place as an example, is urban but is suburban in its design.

i dont really think that the NHL cares what the facade of the arena looks like.

if we compare them, MTS doesnt appear any worse...even if it could have been better.

I suppose I should have articulated my case a little clearer. I don't take exception to the interior at all, and you're right that the NHL doesn't care about what the facade looks like. MTS meets the street well and there is no surface parking lot. In that respect, MTS was built right.

I suppose it's overly picky on my part, but I'm referring to the appearance of the facade. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's not very glamourous or sophisticated. It's very average. This is an entertainment complex and a number of big cities make an effort to build something that offers a little more than simply addressing functionality.

MTS is far better than the Montreal Forum or General Motors Place, but not as good as the ACC or the Sprint Centre in Kansas City. The latter 2 went the extra distance to inject a level of sophistication, glamour, and excitement into their exteriors. Choice of materials, spot lights, scale, proportion, video screens, etc. Granted, the ACC had a leg up on the rest, it's not a new building. It's a gorgeous old postal station that's been turned into an arena. It already had an aura of opulence to it. The setting helps too.

The ACC at night:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/thelastminute/

The setting helps:


New video screen:


From above:


The new side entrance to Union Station:


A reminder of what the finished product is supposed to look like:


The Sprint Centre is more sophisticated that the ACC, but the ACC nailed it when it comes to creating an electrifying and glamourous venue. The ACC also preserved many of those beautiful old 1920's features of the old building. They aren't quite that noticeable to the casual viewer, but these details add to the building a great deal. You really feel like you're in a big exciting city when you walk up to the place.

If Winnipeg wants to get the attention of the NHL, you have to do better than Vancouver of Montreal did with their arenas. They can get away with it. Winnipeg needs to try harder. I'm not saying that making the extra effort will bear fruit, but it's these details that matter.

[wild wild west]

ACC honestly doesn't do anything for me. In fact Trueviking's pictures of its front facade remind me of Scotiabank Place (albeit in a better location). Maybe I'll change my mind when the improvements are complete.

MTS Centre nicely frames the street and maintains a continuous "street wall" in a tight downtown site. Regardless of the merits of its architecture, it's a truly "urban" venue in that it addresses the street on every side. There are plenty of nice NHL and NBA arenas in North America, but few of them fit into their surroundings as well as MTS does in my opinion.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by isaidso

MTS is far better than the Montreal Forum or General Motors Place, but not as good as the ACC or the Sprint Centre in Kansas City. The latter 2 went the extra distance to inject a level of sophistication, glamour, and excitement into their exteriors. Choice of materials, spot lights, scale, proportion, video screens, etc. Granted, the ACC had a leg up on the rest, it's not a new building. It's a gorgeous old postal station that's been turned into an arena. It already had an aura of opulence to it. The setting helps too.

The Sprint Centre is more sophisticated that the ACC, but the ACC nailed it when it comes to creating an electrifying and glamourous venue. The ACC also preserved many of those beautiful old 1920's features of the old building. They aren't quite that noticeable to the casual viewer, but these details add to the building a great deal. You really feel like you're in a big exciting city when you walk up to the place.

Seriously?

Honestly what are you talking about??

The setting?? You mean sandwiched between a 6 lane elevated freeway and 8 tracks of heavy rail??

This has got to be the most blatant homer boisterism post I have ever read.

The ACC is the exact same as every other new stadium in the country...

[wild wild west]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Seriously?

Honestly what are you talking about??

The setting?? You mean sandwiched between a 6 lane elevated freeway and 8 tracks of heavy rail??

This has got to be the most blatant homer boisterism post I have ever read.

The ACC is the exact same as every other new stadium in the country...

Heh heh...I was trying to be diplomatic but yeah, all of those thoughts crossed my mind as well.

[jeremy_haak]

I wasn't too impressed with the ACC street presence, but it's overall location doesn't help. MTS Centre looks really nice personally. Maybe not as glamorous, but nicer to walk alongside.

[flar]

The good side of the ACC:

[le calmar]

The ACC gorgeous? WTF? And the location is terrible! Feel like you're in a big exciting city?