|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 22, 2006 14:09:33 GMT -5
Maybe BT was on to something about the MTS Centre's capacity being a "new trend"... sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2274541WARNING: ANYONE WHO GETS UPSET ABOUT MTS CENTRE EXPANSION DISCUSSION PLEASE STOP READING HERE... My Question: what are your thoughts on expanding MTS Centre's capacity to 16,000 seats? Is there room for skyboxes and some additional seats? What changes could be made to allow at least 16,015 seats and is there any room for standing room...I've never been inside MTS so any views appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 22, 2006 14:20:58 GMT -5
From a previously posted article:
"As reported in the Hartford Courant last week, Northland wants to build the $250 million, 16,000-seat arena at a new downtown location, possibly over Interstate 84 or on a city-owned plot at Main and Trumbull Streets."
MTS Centre seems, if not perfect, really nice AND it amazes me how Chipman and company built the place for around USD100 million given that both Hartford and Pittsburgh are mentioning USD250million figures, the same I believe for KC's arena...Surely we could spend a few million to upgrade MTS when the NHL returns...maybe not the first season but...
|
|
|
Post by bigchris on Jan 22, 2006 14:25:00 GMT -5
It isn't an NHL trend though, just something that would be great if someone wanted to restart the WHA. Until the NHL starts seeing arenas that size, we all just look like hopefuls.
As for the arena, the MTSC was done completely on the cheap whereas other arenas don't skimp on quality.
|
|
|
Post by jeffrey93 on Jan 22, 2006 14:29:06 GMT -5
Those seats must be all lazy boys. $250 million for 16,000 seats? Sheesh. Either there is a lot more to this building....the capacity is wrong....or he's getting hosed.
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 22, 2006 14:45:47 GMT -5
It isn't an NHL trend though, just something that would be great if someone wanted to restart the WHA. Until the NHL starts seeing arenas that size, we all just look like hopefuls. As for the arena, the MTSC was done completely on the cheap whereas other arenas don't skimp on quality. Almost all NHL arenas were built in the last 10 years or so, so it's unlikley a new trend towards building new smaller arenas will take place for several decades by which time the population of each city will have expanded anyway...so, you're right, no new trend anticipated. Also, Pitts is proposing 18,000 seats for their new barn. Re. MTS, it looks really nice outside and in. When you say skimp on quality, in what ways?? I would think Winnipeg hockey fans could care less if we have cement floors in the concorse etc., rather than marble/carpet, for example...
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 22, 2006 14:50:43 GMT -5
Grand Forks has an arena that kicks the MTS Centre's Go Jets Go, so that's a little embarrassing for Winnipeg I think.
And there's never a "curtained off" upper deck for their hockey games either...
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 22, 2006 15:09:45 GMT -5
Grand Forks has an arena that kicks the MTS Centre's Go Jets Go, so that's a little embarrassing for Winnipeg I think. And there's never a "curtained off" upper deck for their hockey games either... Yeah, but don't forget, it's not a realistic comparison. That arena blows away almost all NHL arenas except for size...Engelstad built it as a personal shrine to himself.. From the sports road trip guys... "We'll be very blunt here, this arena is a palace! Amazingly opulent, and if this were an NHL venue, it automatically makes the five star rating and challenges St. Paul and Columbus for best hockey arena in the land. Ralph Engelstad had a vision to build the finest hockey arena in the world and quite frankly, if there is a short list of arenas at the top then this place needs to get a mention on it....no questions asked!"
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 22, 2006 15:12:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 22, 2006 15:12:53 GMT -5
Back in the Moose IHL days, when I was a casual fan, I visited "The Ralph" for an NHL exhib. game featuring the MN Wild.... a few days later I checked out a Moose game at WInnipeg Arena... I was truly, truly DISGUSTED by how we'd "fallen behind" a small town like G.F.... it was like going to Grand Forks Ralph Engelstad was like going to a palace... going to a Moose game at the barn was like going back to the stone age.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 22, 2006 15:14:20 GMT -5
Having been to 'The Ralph' many times, as with MTS Centre, I can tell you that their rink is better.
1. More comfortable seats with more legroom 2. Better scoreboard
|
|
|
Post by jeffrey93 on Jan 22, 2006 15:15:52 GMT -5
Having been to 'The Ralph' many times, as with MTS Centre, I can tell you that their rink is better. 1. More comfortable seats with more legroom 2. Better scoreboard You're guaging which rink is better by the scoreboard? Good Lord....what are you like seven?
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 22, 2006 15:17:18 GMT -5
No idiot, I'm talking about the "arena bowl" part.
The concourse is better as well there. Marble floor, better concession... like I said, feels like a palace. I've been there, you haven't.. so SHUT IT
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Jan 22, 2006 15:20:18 GMT -5
Back in the Moose IHL days, when I was a casual fan, I visited "The Ralph" for an NHL exhib. game featuring the MN Wild.... a few days later I checked out a Moose game at WInnipeg Arena... I was truly, truly DISGUSTED by how we'd "fallen behind" a small town like G.F.... it was like going to Grand Forks Ralph Engelstad was like going to a palace... going to a Moose game at the barn was like going back to the stone age. Just remember, the Ralph is a "freak of nature," an anomaly, built in the middle of nowhere by a deceased tycoon that had a huge ego and was also an alumni of UND hockey. If only he had hailed from Winnipeg, I can't image what our rink would look like... the sport trip guys... "The Ralph" was the vision of one alumni of UND to provide his school with the finest hockey arena in the world. Ralph Engelstad was a goaltender for the Fightin' Sioux back in the forties, who later amassed a huge fortune in Las Vegas through real estate development and casino proprietorship.
Towards the end of the twentieth century he decided to use some of that fortune to build an arena for his old school and by the fall of 2001, an opulent palace to hockey opened up to the world as Ralph Engelstad Arena."
|
|
|
Post by vivianmb on Jan 22, 2006 15:47:36 GMT -5
in bt's defence, that's how the nhl judges this subject too.bells and whistles. all distractions.the game is not what it used to be boys.
|
|
|
Post by hawker14 on Jan 22, 2006 16:13:10 GMT -5
i wish i could get the government to fund a new house for me. i'd gladly contribute 10% of the total to the project.
darn corporate welfare.
|
|
|
Post by garydare on Jan 22, 2006 16:45:07 GMT -5
I was at the Moose-Marlies game on 12/28 and last weekend's WHL game between the Seattle Thunderbirds and the Portland Winterhawks at the Rose Garden. Bowlwise, the MTS Centre compares favorably given the smaller capacity (narrower width and length, lower ceiling) since the Rose Garden can hold 21,000 for NBA. In Portland, they curtained off almost 10,000 seats. But the MTS seats and aisles were more cramped, and the concourse miniscule compared to the malls that line the Rose Garden, or United Center, or the Continental Meadowlands (which is supposedly deficient for the Devils who can't even get 12,000 paying!).
|
|
|
Post by Hannu Smail on Jan 23, 2006 18:03:38 GMT -5
i wish i could get the government to fund a new house for me. i'd gladly contribute 10% of the total to the project. darn corporate welfare. Hawker, if you could show the government that funding your new house would result in a positive contribution to society through providing jobs, growing surrounding businesses, and revitalizing your surrounding neighborhood - all of which generate tax dollars, which pay for social services we all take for granted - then maybe they would listen..... Sorry for the mini-rant, but the "corporate welfare" comment drew out the pro-business side of me! hs.
|
|
|
Post by rtabaracci on Jan 24, 2006 2:27:22 GMT -5
It isn't an NHL trend though, just something that would be great if someone wanted to restart the WHA. Until the NHL starts seeing arenas that size, we all just look like hopefuls. As for the arena, the MTSC was done completely on the cheap whereas other arenas don't skimp on quality. the more I read from you, the more I realize you are a total idiot. They really didnt skimp on quality at all with the MTS Centre. The only downside it has is the lack of washrooms (bring back the trough yadda yadda yadda...) and the fact that it could be a tiny bit larger. It was designed from the rink out, meaning the design was based around the seting bowl and the actual event watching experience as opposed to other arenas who will spend tens of millions of dollars on extras. The reason the MTS Centre cost $130 million instead of $230 million is because we dont have a brewery in our arena or our team offices right in the building (some offices are, but most are next door in the powerhouse) or a 3rd deck, which adds a huuuge cost). If you ad in the powerhouse next door with Tavern United and the Moose/True North offices, thats another $35 million I believe. With another bar and some offices, and a third deck, the cost of the MTS centre could easily have cost nearly $200 million. Its not the quality.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Jan 24, 2006 11:57:29 GMT -5
Wouldn't another bar, more washrooms, wider concourses, a third deck, and most importantly more room in the seating area (to improve the "actual event watching experience" have added to the quality of the MTS? This $35 million for the powerhouse, was that paid by True North? They could have certainly used that to improve some of the above, instead of building a bar and a couple of offices (which they could have leased anywhere on Portage).
|
|
|
Post by rtabaracci on Jan 24, 2006 13:55:30 GMT -5
personally, when I go to a game, the most important part is the actual game. It definately would have been nice to have the giant padded seats they have in Toronto, but I have no problems with ours. Having the bar and everything in the arena would defiantely have added to its wow factor, but in the end, having them next door is just as effective it not even more so. When we have NHL hockey back and the arena is filled, Tavern United will be packed with people watching the game on TV. That couldn't happen if the bar was inside the arena (maybe it could have, all depends on how it was designed I guess). Both ways have their positives and negatives.
|
|