|
Post by Nikolai on Jan 15, 2005 6:10:54 GMT -5
Can I ask why it's such a big deal to get the Jets in the MTS Centre? This proposed building would have a ton more seats, bigger arena, etc.
I'm from MN so I don't know any specifics here. Inform me please.
|
|
|
Post by wreckage on Jan 15, 2005 9:50:25 GMT -5
Can I ask why it's such a big deal to get the Jets in the MTS Centre? This proposed building would have a ton more seats, bigger arena, etc. I'm from MN so I don't know any specifics here. Inform me please. One of the reasons the NHL kabeeshed the original 'peg Jets was because of the size of the then current arena (cap at what 13,500?), with no plans to upgrade. And now adays, the NHL's average arena holds more like 18000 at cap. About 1000 more than the the fire marshall will allow (understandably so) with S.R.O. at MTSC. That is the only true question holding them back (aside from which of these clubs does _____(fill in the blanks) _____ decide to purchase, provided Bettman approves amove back to the 'peg. Aside from that... The only answer I could give to the way that question is by the way you form it. You need the Jets before you put them in a new building. As of now, there are no Winnipeg Jets. They were stolen.
|
|
|
Post by wreckage on Jan 15, 2005 9:56:22 GMT -5
just a thought. once the new stadium opens, how about building a permanent amusement park at the exhibition grounds. it probably would never fly but man would that be sweet!!!! Why would they waste their time doing that if the city wouldn't support tinker-town? I mean honestly, off all the times I was ever there it was filled with about 8 16-18 year olds riding the cages. If a they couldn't make it 10 years ago, why would one pull it off now days. And even tinker-town was along the parimeter, right next to another certain "water park".
|
|
|
Post by Yar on Jan 15, 2005 23:05:23 GMT -5
let me ask you a question. why do you think the city doesnt support tinkertown??? its really not a hard one. look at the rides. i wasnt talking about building another dinkertown, im talking about a real amusment park. one with real roller coasters and other thrill rides. kinda like a permanent ex only bigger to keep the public coming back for more. and you are comparing fun mountain to the proposed new waterpark?? if they are planning on spending the money to build an indoor water park i hope they dont plan on building one like fun mountain. fun mountains slides arent much more thrilling than dinkertowns rides! and like i said in my original amusement park post, "it would probably never fly" but it sure would be sweet! ;D
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on Jan 17, 2005 1:38:05 GMT -5
let me ask you a question. why do you think the city doesnt support tinkertown??? its really not a hard one. look at the rides. i wasnt talking about building another dinkertown, im talking about a real amusment park. one with real roller coasters and other thrill rides. kinda like a permanent ex only bigger to keep the public coming back for more. and you are comparing fun mountain to the proposed new waterpark?? if they are planning on spending the money to build an indoor water park i hope they dont plan on building one like fun mountain. fun mountains slides arent much more thrilling than dinkertowns rides! and like i said in my original amusement park post, "it would probably never fly" but it sure would be sweet! ;D Shut up man! Tinkertown is a great amusement park! ....................................... For 8 year olds! Great post yar, I wouldnt even call Tinkertown an amusement park, more like a kiddie park. Maybe they can build some retail development at the Downs as well, then the idea of a waterpark, amusement park become much more feasible à la West Edmonton Mall. Also, to clarify things for some other people, I'm talking about a waterpark closer to that of WEM (about 1/3-1/2 the size though) and a small indoor amusement park of about (1/3-1/2) the size of West Edmonton Mall's as well.
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on Jan 17, 2005 1:38:54 GMT -5
Can I ask why it's such a big deal to get the Jets in the MTS Centre? This proposed building would have a ton more seats, bigger arena, etc. I'm from MN so I don't know any specifics here. Inform me please. This building is a Football stadium, not a hockey arena, thats why.
|
|
|
Post by Luke on Jan 17, 2005 1:54:14 GMT -5
let me ask you a question. why do you think the city doesnt support tinkertown??? its really not a hard one. look at the rides. i wasnt talking about building another dinkertown, im talking about a real amusment park. one with real roller coasters and other thrill rides. kinda like a permanent ex only bigger to keep the public coming back for more. and you are comparing fun mountain to the proposed new waterpark?? if they are planning on spending the money to build an indoor water park i hope they dont plan on building one like fun mountain. fun mountains slides arent much more thrilling than dinkertowns rides! and like i said in my original amusement park post, "it would probably never fly" but it sure would be sweet! ;D the only reason that it condent work is because of the frost thacovers the peg groung in the winter. and there is the thawing in spring to worry about as well
|
|
|
Post by Yar on Jan 17, 2005 1:58:15 GMT -5
i know it doesnt get as cold in toronto and minniapolis as it does in winnipeg but i know they get frost too and they both have large outdoor amusement parks. im sure there is a way to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on Jan 17, 2005 2:18:28 GMT -5
i know it doesnt get as cold in toronto and minniapolis as it does in winnipeg but i know they get frost too and they both have large outdoor amusement parks. im sure there is a way to make it work. It could be an indoor park like WEM. I dont think Winnipeg is large enough yet to think about somthing similar to ValleyFair, but instead we could have a smaller park, built indoors so it could be open year round. The frost and melt each year could cause massive damage to the structure of many large rides, not to mention rust and more. Indoor would be much more viable for us, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by PitbulI on Jan 26, 2005 3:03:17 GMT -5
A year around amusement park. Let me guess. Near the downs?
I went to the Drive in last year and I thought I was in Saskatchewan. A lot of ugly people who looked like their family tree didn't fork, what would we need an amusement park for? So we could have year round Carnies?
Let's just focus on the new Stadium and the Jets. hehehe.
If the Winnipeg Jets come back, it would probably be before 2008, when the new stadium would be ready.
I think that the West end has had enough stuff there already. Why not move it east to the nice Green areas East of Transcona? Not in the yellow grain areas where the Downs are located?
Or, what about having the new stadium South of Bishop? Like near the Auto Park or something? I know we have chances of flooding there but don't we have that problem in almost every area of Winnipeg if the flood is bad enough?
I myself wouldn't mind the new stadium to be built near a river. It would look really nice. Unless Headingly became part of Winnipeg and we built up around there with residential and commercial property, it would be an eyesore. The Canad Inns Toilet Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 26, 2005 5:39:21 GMT -5
I don't care where it is built, as long as the stadium is not Domed. Football is meant to be played outdoors. I would stop going to Bomber games if they were indoor.
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on Jan 26, 2005 11:01:10 GMT -5
I don't care where it is built, as long as the stadium is not Domed. Football is meant to be played outdoors. I would stop going to Bomber games if they were indoor. sounds like they want it domed by the article I recently read in the sun. They want it to be an indoors stadium (They dont want to, but it just makes so much financial sense) so that it can be used year round, and could even host things like concerts and such in the winter.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on Jan 26, 2005 17:16:02 GMT -5
The Canada Packers site in St. Boniface, a site pegged for a possible arena a few years back, would be a good choice. Lots of land, and not all the way out of the city.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jan 26, 2005 21:49:29 GMT -5
i thought the inside portion of the proposed stadium was supposed to be under the stands. i thought they were saying that would be enough to have a fairly large and prominent area for conventions and such.
i sure hope they don't change their minds and build a giant enclosed stadium. at least they could have a semi-permanent roof system that can be removed during summer, a roof similar to BC place.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 27, 2005 3:10:45 GMT -5
The Bombers obviously have not learned from past history. Domed stadiums do not work! Just look at the NFL. Minnesota, Detroit, Seattle, Houston, etc are either build or have built outdoor stadiums to replace the Domes of the 70's.
In Canada, no Dome has really been sucessful. The "Big O" in Montreal was a disaster, and not even the Alouettes will play there. The Skydome was overbudget by $400 million, and the Argos are moving to an outdoor stadium. BC Place, built in 83' was an initial sucess, but flopped, and now most of the seats are curtained off.
Even places like Fargo are regretting building a Dome. Besides, why would we build a dome for "conventions and other events" when we just finished the MTS Centre??
If they find a private backer to finance a Indoor staduim, then so be it. However, I wouldn't want a dime of taxpayer money to fund the project. It would just create conflicts with the new arena.
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on Jan 27, 2005 11:26:54 GMT -5
The Bombers obviously have not learned from past history. Domed stadiums do not work! Just look at the NFL. Minnesota, Detroit, Seattle, Houston, etc are either build or have built outdoor stadiums to replace the Domes of the 70's. In Canada, no Dome has really been sucessful. The "Big O" in Montreal was a disaster, and not even the Alouettes will play there. The Skydome was overbudget by $400 million, and the Argos are moving to an outdoor stadium. BC Place, built in 83' was an initial sucess, but flopped, and now most of the seats are curtained off. Even places like Fargo are regretting building a Dome. Besides, why would we build a dome for "conventions and other events" when we just finished the MTS Centre?? If they find a private backer to finance a Indoor staduim, then so be it. However, I wouldn't want a dime of taxpayer money to fund the project. It would just create conflicts with the new arena. I'm not a big fan of the stadium being domed, but it could hold things like concerts and such in the Wintertime. I dont know if this would violate Chipman's "monopoly" clause though...
|
|
|
Post by jetblood on Feb 13, 2005 17:39:33 GMT -5
A retractable dome is the best bet leave the dome open in the summer and keep it closed in the winter and rainy days. plus having it closed would be huge for concerts and stuff like that.
|
|