HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

    Heritage Landing in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Winnipeg Skyscraper Diagram
            
View Full Map

View Poll Results: Rate Winnipegs New Stadium, Investors Group Field
1-Poor 5 6.58%
2-Below Average 5 6.58%
3-Average 16 21.05%
4-Better than Average 32 42.11%
5-Great 18 23.68%
Voters: 76. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2013, 2:58 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Shāh Māt
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Live Via your IP
Posts: 3,181
Rate Winnipegs New Investors Group Field Stadium

Rate Winnipeg's new stadium, Investors Group Field.

Overall functionality, concessions, parking, appearance, and actual personal experience if you attended an event.

Rate from 1-5 Poor =1, 3=Average, 5= Excellent.

Image Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...roup_Field.png
__________________
Have patience. All things are difficult before they become easy. #WPGWhiteout

Last edited by Cyro; Jun 15, 2013 at 4:57 PM. Reason: Image Added:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2013, 3:20 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
perspicacity 24/7
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 49.8955° N, 97.1384° W
Posts: 7,144
I gave it a 4. It's obvious that this is not a no-expense-spared Cowboys Stadium kind of place, but I think that the end result is very good considering the budget. It is attractive and functional, and apart from the access issues it works very well.

IGF is also very Winnipeggy in that it stops short of being something truly spectacular (for budgetary reasons, of course), putting it in very much the same category as our other two big pro sports venues not to mention our airport, rapid transit and just about any other major project in recent years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2013, 5:01 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,147
Gave it a 1 as there are so many corners cut that are impacting the fan experience already and it will only get more painful from here.

- Upper concourse should be fully enclosed/partially heated for cold weather games.
- The roof is acting as a wind funnel making sitting in certain sections unpleasant.
- Site access will be an issue for many years to come unless rapid transit is majorly fast tracked
- Potential issues with rain water collection/retention observed during training camp.
- Issues with obstructed sight lines.
- A major access gate off an empty field. (no parking/street nearby)

The list just keeps going and some are not simply quick fixes either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2013, 5:08 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Shāh Māt
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Live Via your IP
Posts: 3,181
Above average, compared to the other CFL stadiums currently in use in Canada.

Top marks for a stadium "Budget Wise", 190$ million expenditure + 10$ million by Club for Add on's.

Below Average for parking problems, for "1st trial" run of Stadium.
__________________
Have patience. All things are difficult before they become easy. #WPGWhiteout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2013, 1:35 AM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 362
I find it hard to compare to other CFL stadiums, most built in another era. Haven't been to BC Place since it was rebuilt.

Location is brutal. Worse than poor.

Hard to rate concessions and everything like that because several aren't running yet and staff couldn't get there to run the ones that were going at full capacity, plus it was the first event. Looks like all the options are there, but they need to work on organization (order, pickup, queues).

Lower concourse couldn't handle a crowd roughly 5000 under capacity. Poor. Imagine when 10000 temp seats are added on top of the endzone seats for a Grey Cup.

Many obstructed seats (including handicapped sections). Poor.

Press box fiasco. Poor.

Bowl design that works well for hockey and NFL stadiums around a Canadian field resulting in thousands of poor views from the endzone and corners. This is a creature of the budget in that a horseshoe (like Canad Inns) with 80% coverage would have required much more steel and concrete.

Lots of bathrooms, although they put the entrance and exit signs in the wrong spots for the one at the top of my section. You entered and walked by all the sinks to get to the urinals then went back to the entrance to the sinks, back past the urinals to exit.

Lots of leg room.

Giant jumbotrons, of which half are used for video at all times, even replays.

Overall I feel that the stadium is visually appealing, but functionally inadequate in terms of selling the tickets necessary over it's lifespan. Too many bad seats, poor access and concourses that can't handle necessary traffic. They swung for the fence and popped up. Compared to other arenas and stadia I've been to, it has a cheap feel once inside. With a smaller budget, should have taken that $30 million or so that it took for the arches and built a functional football stadium for $190-$200-$210 million or whatever it ends up costing. Of course with the rabble rabble crowd that wants a dome or nothing that 80% coverage was a big selling point. Although when it is windy that coverage doesn't really matter. Would not be surprised if this stadium does not last as long as Winnipeg Stadium or if the Bombers end up getting at least one government bailout during the lifespan of IGF due to the problems they'll face due to location and debt service.

On the scale of 5, my expecations were a solid 4, in reality it's a 1.5. Half a bonus point for visual appeal from the outside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2013, 4:07 AM
Reed Solomon's Avatar
Reed Solomon Reed Solomon is offline
Irritated Spend-ergy
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: WIN A PIG, MAN A TUBA
Posts: 779
I'm optimistic that in the next few years they will have things operating well. Hopefully once Rapid Transit gets there the parking issues will be moot. Though I imagine they'll build some parkades perhaps near the stadium. Some sort of development is bound to happen around there. And another entranceway. People will figure it out.

Hopefully in the places they cut costs, when it comes time to renevate or do some maintenance 10 or 20 years down the line they can fix most of those issues.

I give it a 4, but really it's more of a 7.5.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2013, 2:00 AM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny D Oh View Post
Of course with the rabble rabble crowd that wants a dome or nothing that 80% coverage was a big selling point. Although when it is windy that coverage doesn't really matter.
Has season tickets at CanadInns Stadium and endured some cold, windy and rainy games there. Having been to IGF twice now and experienced the negative impact the giant wind amplification funnel hanging over the place is having I would rather be sitting in a muddy field with a lawn chair to watch the team (aka take a can opened to that roof and get rid of it). Said it before, when people are pulling out the sort of fan gear you would have seen after Thanksgiving at the old place on a +20 June day you got significant issues that will be screaming at you when those late season games hit and the walk-up for the upper deck seats is none existent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2013, 3:08 AM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 6,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed Solomon View Post
I'm optimistic that in the next few years they will have things operating well. Hopefully once Rapid Transit gets there the parking issues will be moot. Though I imagine they'll build some parkades perhaps near the stadium. Some sort of development is bound to happen around there. And another entranceway. People will figure it out.
It will be interesting to compare (a) the cost of all the upgrading that is eventually undertaken to (b) the amount of federal funding that was gained by building the stadium on campus.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2013, 5:33 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Shāh Māt
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Live Via your IP
Posts: 3,181
As always some posters will step up and rate/use a poll when thier opinion is annonymous.

Then thier is posters who will actually post and tell you what they rated in a private poll.

I'm just curious why some posters will rate at the lowest end of the scale but will not post thier opinion later explaining it? oh well it's just a poll right?
__________________
Have patience. All things are difficult before they become easy. #WPGWhiteout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2013, 5:53 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,498
Pretty sure I voted "4 - Better than average".

It's a great facility but there are the issues discussed. Overall I don't think we could really expect anything more for the budget. Does Winnipeg really need anything more than what we got? I don't think so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2013, 6:30 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Shāh Māt
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Live Via your IP
Posts: 3,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Pretty sure I voted "4 - Better than average".

It's a great facility but there are the issues discussed. Overall I don't think we could really expect anything more for the budget. Does Winnipeg really need anything more than what we got? I don't think so.

No doubt thier are issues BJ. I didn't expect much more for the budget either.
But you are one that voices his opinion. Which is more than many posters are willing to do.

Winnipeg definately recieved no more than could be expected. A great facility. maybe even a 7.5 if I use the 1-10 scale.
__________________
Have patience. All things are difficult before they become easy. #WPGWhiteout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2013, 9:32 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrodill View Post
I'm just curious why some posters will rate at the lowest end of the scale but will not post thier opinion later explaining it? oh well it's just a poll right?
I am actually just as curious why there are so mnay high end (4 and 5) votes with no explaination. It would be inetersting to know if the people that are thinking highly of the stadium have attended an event there or even been inside the actual building, and yes I have on both counts.

In the run up to the opening of the bulding, from the hype and looking at it from the street outside I would have given it a much higher rating however when you actually start to look at what we got there are lots of corners cut that even if they go "unnoticed" will be impacting the fan experience for years to come.

Cyrodill, what are your thoughts on the nearly useless access gate on the northwest corner and the upper deck concourse? Did you experince the venue for either the preseason game or the concert?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2013, 9:40 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
perspicacity 24/7
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 49.8955° N, 97.1384° W
Posts: 7,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Cyrodill, what are your thoughts on the nearly useless access gate on the northwest corner and the upper deck concourse? Did you experince the venue for either the preseason game or the concert?
The NW gate is useless for now, but once the Southwood lands are developed there will likely be a direct connection from that gate to the transit corridor, so it will become much more important in the near future.

The upper deck concourse reminds me of the one at the HHH Metrodome... I don't think it's that bad. The biggest issue I can see with the concourse is that the vomitories leading to the upper rows of the upper deck are too narrow for comfort... I don't understand why they didn't go with one slightly wider staircase that can handle two-way traffic instead of a pair of extremely narrow staircases.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2013, 9:52 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,498
Yeah, the useless NW gate will be the most used gate in a few years time (hopefully), when RT gets there.

I've been to the stadium twice now. Once for the game, the other was season ticket pick-up. The lower bowl and concourse are fantastic. I'm not sure what else you could want. Lots of room, seats and leg room are great!

The upper concourse is fine. Yes the vomitories are small, but so what. I didn't get stuck in traffic once when I was up there last game. Leg room is less than the lower bowl. But, as others have said, that's what the nose bleeds are about or else you'd be 2 miles from the field.

My seat for this season is in 205. As I've said before, I'll be moving to the lower bowl next season. I wanted that to this year, but stuck with the group consensus.

And please specify about the cut corners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2013, 1:58 AM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 6,765
4 - Better than average

It's the 2nd best football stadium in the country after BC Place.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2013, 2:57 AM
Tower Crane's Avatar
Tower Crane Tower Crane is offline
ABOVE people like you
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba
Posts: 339
Stadium Gets a Grade of C-

To the untrained eye( most of you folks ) it looks great. Big Fail on achieving key requirements.
> This item is the biggest screwup, 33% percent of the seats are outside of the goal line and in the end zone which makes it seem bigtime but is an awful design for fans in this size of stadium. Only only push 33% percent of your seats here when you have maximized seating between the goal lines. Needed to skinny up the number of rows in the end zones and push those seats between the goal lines to become choice seats. Grade F-
> Open concourse of this width works on paper plans only, add concession line ups and circular concourse traffic flow in two directions and this really fails. Grade D-
> Providing a proper road network and rapid transit to such a facility is critical to a facility such as this. Grade F-
> Other oddball railing design and none draining concrete rows in the upper deck. Grade C-
> Basic building appearance. Grade B-
> I've also done some layouts and I'm hard pressed to see how you add the extra seats to create 45,000 while leaving sufficient concourse pace on front of or below the added bleachers. Grade is pending

This is not an above average stadium and falls far short of that mark but.........I'll have my butt in the stands cheering on the Blue and Gold.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2013, 8:37 AM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower Crane View Post
To the untrained eye( most of you folks ) it looks great. Big Fail on achieving key requirements.
> This item is the biggest screwup, 33% percent of the seats are outside of the goal line and in the end zone which makes it seem bigtime but is an awful design for fans in this size of stadium. Only only push 33% percent of your seats here when you have maximized seating between the goal lines. Needed to skinny up the number of rows in the end zones and push those seats between the goal lines to become choice seats. Grade F-
> Open concourse of this width works on paper plans only, add concession line ups and circular concourse traffic flow in two directions and this really fails. Grade D-
> Providing a proper road network and rapid transit to such a facility is critical to a facility such as this. Grade F-
> Other oddball railing design and none draining concrete rows in the upper deck. Grade C-
> Basic building appearance. Grade B-
> I've also done some layouts and I'm hard pressed to see how you add the extra seats to create 45,000 while leaving sufficient concourse pace on front of or below the added bleachers. Grade is pending

This is not an above average stadium and falls far short of that mark but.........I'll have my butt in the stands cheering on the Blue and Gold.
I'll find out for myself later today what kind of stadium we have, but your criticism of this facility sure seems harsh.

In what way does this fall short of an "above average" stadium? What stadiums are you even comparing it too? If its current CFl stadiums then I find that highly improbable. If its NFL stadiums, well those have huge budgets and its a little unfair to compare a $200 million facility to the $500 million to $1 billion facilities in the NFL - things will always have to cut and comprimises will have to be made in a venue that's on a tight budget ie. small upper deck concourse. Speaking of which....

I'm not an expert, but wouldn't expansion of the seating between the goal lines increase the costs of the building, thereby necessitating cutbacks elsewhere. I mean, more rows in both the lower deck and upper deck would expand the footprint of the stadium, and require more material (concrete, steel) to build out, wouldn't it? If they had done this, would we have not seen more cutbacks elsewhere? - only one jumbotron, possibly no awnings...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2013, 1:28 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,498
Regardless, I'll be attending events at this stadium for the rest of my life. And I'll be enjoying it the whole way! It's time to get over it and move on. If you don't like what's going on in Winnipeg, go check out the other city threads.

I'll make an effort to ignore the stadium threads whenever they are updated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2013, 2:03 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Shāh Māt
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Live Via your IP
Posts: 3,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Cyrodill, what are your thoughts on the nearly useless access gate on the northwest corner and the upper deck concourse? Did you experince the venue for either the preseason game or the concert?
The gate is underused at this time but access to the stadium is well served with it. (required for entrance/departing spectators), ie: stage implodes>>access... I have not yet had the pleasure of experiencing the upperdeck concourse but I never sat in the upper deck at Polo Park for any event. I was on the floor for the swift concert. No need to explore the stadium at this time.

Still rate it high above average, as do aprx: 80% of posters so far. In my "Humble 1st time exp.".. I will enjoy it for many years to come..
__________________
Have patience. All things are difficult before they become easy. #WPGWhiteout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2013, 2:43 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
perspicacity 24/7
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 49.8955° N, 97.1384° W
Posts: 7,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Regardless, I'll be attending events at this stadium for the rest of my life. And I'll be enjoying it the whole way! It's time to get over it and move on. If you don't like what's going on in Winnipeg, go check out the other city threads.

I'll make an effort to ignore the stadium threads whenever they are updated.
I think this is probably the best approach to take with the stadium. IGF makes CanadInns look like something out of the stone age, and yet somehow for all those years we went to CanadInns and still managed to have fun and enjoy ourselves.

There are problems with IGF just as there are with any new facility. However, most of the issues raised with regard to IGF strike me as pretty nitpicky in nature and don’t fundamentally detract from the fan experience. Many of them can be fixed without an enormous amount of trouble or expense, like the concession lines blocking concourse traffic or lack of proper exhaust vents. Even the press box problem can be resolved without too much trouble, although it is a head-scratcher why that one wasn’t done correctly to begin with – I don’t think I’ve ever seen an open-air press box like that in any stadium that I’ve ever been to.

The only really big flashing-red-light problem with IGF has nothing to do with the stadium itself, and that’s the access issue. However, even that situation will improve as a) fans and transit officials get used to the facility and find out what works, and b) as infrastructure improves with the addition of a transit corridor through the Southwood lands, more diamond lanes and the like.

I guess if you measure IGF against a standard of perfection it falls short, but when you compare it to our old facility, other stadiums around the CFL and other new stadiums being built in other leagues, it holds up very well – especially when you factor in the cost.
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 9:27 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.