Why only a 15,000 seat stadium anyways?

I know there has been lots of discussion regarding the new stadium, however, this particular issue hasn't been discussed much and it concerns me greatly.

Why on earth would you build a 15,000 seat stadium, go through all that engineering and construction and mess in the neighbourhood, only to basically tear it all apart to make room for up to 15,000 more seats right away after the Games ? Won't that second major construction project basically shut the place down for at least a year, and if so, where do the Tiger-Cats go during that period? Ivor Wynne?........the place may be condemned as unsafe by that time

I mean, it seems to me that to double the seating will require the stadium to be turned into pretty much a bowl and that is not a minor renovation. Add to that all the stadium infrastructure that has to be added such as concessions, washrooms, electrical, plumbing, various systems and other facilities I'm not even thinking of right now.

Second point I'd like to make is how come the Pan Am Games committee is satisfied that a major sporting extravaganza such as the Pan Am Games will only attract 15,000 people at any give time in the main stadium? Isn't that a little on the low end if we are to believe all the hype we have been subject to from officials?

Will this new stadium, even after expansion, qualify for a Grey Cup Game without even further temporary seating? .....and will it even accomodate temporary seating up to 40-50 thousand ?

All in all, it seems crazy to me to erect what will turn out to be a huge stadium in bits and pieces and I can only imagine the legal court battles that will spring up from the residents down there in that area.

Athough I'm all in favour of doing this right the first time and to build it on the east mountain near all the expressways, I'll concede that city council is hell bent on using this stadium as some sort of fix to all the problems downtown. I just don't think building an initial 15,000 stadium is the answer......go all in or go home is my view.

....... thanks for reading :slight_smile:

I guess you have not really been following thew whole stadium thing.

The idea is the Pan Am budget pays for a 15,000 seat stadium and then Bob Young will throw it the rest to make it a 25-30,000 seat stadium.

I was under the impression that only 15,000 seats will be built for the games and then the entire thing will be expanded after the games.....am I wrong and the whole thing is to be built at once the first time?

My objections all along have been in order

  1. cost
  2. suitability of facility for post-games use
  3. location

Sure.... $50M from the private sector. Who would this private sector benefactor be and what would be the true cost of his generosity. Who's covering the inevitable overruns? How much will need to be flushed down the toilet to maintain IWS for the next 5 years minimum while the project is under construction? Will the IWS maintenance costs be added to construction costs to give an accurate comparison to reno vs new? Are we engaging in an honest debate?

Number 1 won't go away no matter what so lets focus on 2 and 3. You make an excellent point about the suitability of the stadium for post games use. Not only is it an inappropriate facility for football because of the track its so small that its a joke. In the end we'll be stuck with a patchwork of a stadium that will be a considerable downgrade from what people expect.

Number 2 will be a furious debate. Your east mountain location is not even on the table. Honestly downtown beats the east mountain IMO and the airport.

I think everyone is jumping to conclusions here based on incomplete information. Now that the games have been secured, there will be a flury of activity over the next few months to a year and basically anything is possible. Way, way to early to make any conclusions as to what the stadium will look like come Pan-Am Games time and post games. And what private sector partners will be on board and why.

Merely questions Earl. Truthfully I expect to hear BEFORE the bid award who'd willing to pony up the cash. AFTER the bid award I expect the rest. Most importantly I expect to be disappointed due to the lack of answers to some of those questions particularily those about overruns and IWS

Come on AKT, the site isn't even cemented in stone yet and some private partners are probably wondering where exactly the site will be before they committ to anything if the site doesn't fit with their business plans. Let the jockying begin in earnest now.

I hope the TigerVison can be dismantled and re-installed at the new stadium wherever it may be

By the way, my impression that the Pan Am Stadium will only be 15,000 initially, seems to be correct:

[url=http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=capress-games_pan_am_toronto_venues-055286431&prov=capress&type=lgns]http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slu ... &type=lgns[/url]

Sorry Earl IMO you don't commit to a project without full funding in place. Right now we have a 15,000 seat stadium, nothing more.

a 15,000 seater that will be nicer than IWS

Nicer for what? High school track and football? Surely you don't suggest a 15,000 seat stadium of any kind is an option for the CFL' s Ticats

Re: deerhunter "concerns me greatly"

If you had your way the games would be in Lima, Peru so why all the "concerns", mikey ?
That and your self proclaimed "casual fan" status all your complaints about a stadium you'll seldom be at are quite hollow.

Thats not what i said ... but the 15,000 seater on a regular gameday is big enough for the cats as it is now. How often does it need to be bigger Labour day is one .. and perhaps playoffs.

Any brand new facility will be nicer than an old falling apart stadium.

I do like IWS i have alot of memories there from watching the cats play there to actually have played some games there in high school many years ago. An upgrade is an upgrade but why focus on all the negative aspects when you could look on the positive side of the city taking advantage of this and starting to improve things. Stadium designers have improved so much over the years i am sure it will be great for the Cats once they are moved in an all is done.

Since our average attendance on days outside Labour Day is 19,000 or so, Id say you are wrong

Seems to me that some of the powers to be should Head ovedr to Buffalo, they seem to have the "blueprint"

http://www.ubathletics.buffalo.edu/venues/stadium.shtml

Wow that stadium sucks

Come on then AKT show us a stadium you do not think sucks … without posting a pick of IWS . You cannot be that narrow minded … altho i wouldn’t be surprised from your comments on here. But yes a little project for you show us some stadiums you think are good

Agreed. Completely. Nothing is finalised yet, not even the site. Only now is it full speed ahead with the planning.

Not me. If I were a private donor, I'd wait to see how much the public sector is spending first and then make a decision of how much.

It's all about psoturing and positioning, hoping the other guy will pay more.

[url=http://www.cisport.ca/e/pol_proc/2006_Policy_40_Eligibility.htm]http://www.cisport.ca/e/pol_proc/2006_P ... bility.htm[/url] [url=http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/ACC/VirginiaTech/index.htm]http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/ACC/ ... /index.htm[/url] [url=http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/BigEast/Cincinnati/index.htm]http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/BigE ... /index.htm[/url] [url=http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/BigEast/Rutgers/index.htm]http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/BigE ... /index.htm[/url]

And what we should look to get

[url=http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/MidAmerica/Akron/newindex.htm]http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/MidA ... windex.htm[/url]