What could have been

Winnipeg Stadium is in the over 200 million range. I wish money grew on trees then i would donate 50 mil to bring IWS 2 up to the standard of the rich and famous :wink:

[url=http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/12/21/cost-of-bombers-new-stadium-goes-up-to-200m]http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/12/21/c ... up-to-200m[/url]

I wonder how much money is being spent on the temporary stadium/season, and how much is being lost because of it.

That could have been put to better use.

Well, the team is borrowing $95m to do it right. It was $85m, and according to that article the team decided to add another $10m in bells and whistles, bumping up their loan to $95m.

I don't know, I've been to The Ralph, Notre Dame Stadium, Michigan Stadium - all open air stadiums and I think they are great stadiums. The newer Carolina Panthers stadium is open air as well. I see nothing about reducing intimacy with open air at all, in fact it reduces the "arena feel" which is excellent because I prefer not to feel enclosed when I'm attending a football or baseball game, I'll leave that for when I go to an arena for hockey.

But these are matters of personal preference aesthetics and feel, I will admit that and there is no right or wrong way.

I'm sure though if need be some sort of a canvas type awning could be added on the two sides down the road if fan feedback says that would be good after a few years of being in it, if funds are available. Again, that is the beauty with the stadium design, it can be altered as such for much less costs than if it were built off the bat with an enclosed design that cost a lot more money that people didn't like, you're sort of stuck with it if this is built into the structure of the stadium to support the stands.

Like this:

The Real Salt Lake Rio Tinto Stadium in Sandy, Utah, has an open-air design to take advantage of Salt Lake’s natural surroundings, the Wasatch Mountains to the east and Oquirrh Mountains to the west

http://intermountain.construction.com/images/0811_cover_story_field.jpg

Not sure if a 100 million extra for half a roof and a few extra seats is worth it :wink: The grass isnt always greener on the other side !! and who wants to sit in shade in sept, oct, nov, BRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

Can't edit anymore. The link to the above is:

[url=http://intermountain.construction.com/features/archive/0811_cover.asp]http://intermountain.construction.com/f ... _cover.asp[/url]

Again, a canopy or awning like in Salt Lake could be added if need be down the road I believe.

And the Falcons are looking into an open-air stadium as well:

Falcons' push for open-air stadium gets lift

[url=http://www.ajc.com/news/business/falcons-push-for-open-air-stadium-gets-lift/nQqtd/]http://www.ajc.com/news/business/falcon ... ift/nQqtd/[/url]

Doesn't need the roof, but an extra almost 50% (10,000 or so) more seats...

http://markosun.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/stadiumz1.jpg?w=936&h=557

Yes, but NFL fans don't need canopies etc to attract fans, we do. We have a big TV audience but for some reason they don't want to attend in person. How many times did we read posts where someone said, "there's not going to be a big walk-up crowd because rain is in the forecast" ?? Hamilton is notorious for having small crowds when the weather is bad, how many times have we sold out a playoff game in the cold in November? People would rather sit at home in their comfy warm/dry living rooms watching on HD on their big screen TVs getting the stadium experience for free. Why sit on an uncomfortable crowded narrow bench with no back getting wet or cold?

Can you imagine Packers fans staying at home because the weather is rainy or cold or snowy?

You have to get convince people, especially in Hamilton that they can have the comforts of home at the stadium and it's the "real stadium experience" nothing like watching a game live.

Yes, but NFL fans don't need canopies etc to attract fans, we do.

If that's really the case, then the CFL is in big trouble. :wink: :?

Families are struggling out there with real problems, financial and otherwise, and there are those here fretting over a stadium that is not being built to Cadillac standards.

At most it will be used for 10 days a year, the rest of the time it will be idle. And all those bells and whistles that are being asked for will add to everyone's taxes in the community.

It's a facility that only a very small number of the community will use or even see.

What's there now is good enough.

Very, very well said old fan. :thup:

I disagree on many levels. If our stadium were being built in any other CFL city, it would certainly have at least a few more
amenities. Check out Saskatchewan and Winnipeg for examples. Of course, Toronto, BC and Edmonton are already miles ahead of us because of their vast populations and Alberta’s money from oil. The previous examples however, are not.

I am certain that the plan in Hamilton is to use the facility for more than “at most, 10 days a year.” The mayor claims
that plans have been afoot for some time now to host other events here.

What’s there now is NOT good enough for me. (but I’ll go regardless, as am avid football fan).

[b]"I disagree on many levels. If our stadium were being built in any other CFL city, it would certainly have at least a few more
amenities. Check out Saskatchewan and Winnipeg for examples. Of course, Toronto, BC and Edmonton are already miles ahead of us because of their vast populations and Alberta's money from oil. The previous examples however, are not.

I am certain that the plan in Hamilton is to use the facility for more than "at most, 10 days a year." The mayor claims
that plans have been afoot for some time now to host other events here.

What's there now is NOT good enough for me. (but I'll go regardless, as am avid football fan)."[/b]

But, Rocky, it's not being built elsewhere.If's are interesting, but they often don't portray the truth. Saskatchewan is having a boom economy, Hamilton is not.

Whatever the city has plans for, again, falls under the if's category. How often was Ivor Wynne in use other than for the Tiger cat games? That will likely be an indicator as to how many other uses this one will see.

With all due respect, Rocky, whether it's good enough for you is not the point. It's how much all you want in this new stadium will cost EVERYONE ELSE (taxpayers). They have a say too. And as much as you.

Take those permanent seats out of the endzone and replace them with temporary seats and change the remaining colour scheme to black and gold and it would look the same as our Stadium to me.
And the bonus of not raising property taxes one thin dime!

There is nothing wrong with our Stadium

I hear you, Grover. And I can see the similarity. Good point.

But, doesn't this stadium have awnings?

Yes it does, it has a wavy roof.

When you showed the picture above and mentioned about the similarities, that's when I thought about the awning. I guess the artist removed it so you could get a better view of the seating and such....

One major difference is that the Bombers new stadium, and most other stadia, have seats that curve so that those not between the 20's have good sight lines.

It can makes a big difference to game day experience.... and also one's neck muscles.

The curved seats are a good idea until you have swerve right or left and the person next to you decide to stay facing front. Then you may need to crane your neck in that direction (backward), thus creating the same problem.

If I'm understanding you correctly, Mark.