|
Post by the_jaf on Jan 23, 2007 13:02:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dbp1990 on Jan 23, 2007 13:50:53 GMT -5
They should scrap the Human rights Museam and put it at the forks, knock down the skateboard park if you have to, the EMO's will move elsewhere............
|
|
|
Post by the_jaf on Jan 23, 2007 13:56:43 GMT -5
They should scrap the Human rights Museam and put it at the forks, knock down the skateboard park if you have to, the EMO's will move elsewhere............ 30,000 - 40,000 people at the forks for a bomber game, across from the baseball stadium. Can you IMAGINE the parking and traffic issues? (More so traffic) Don't think that would be a good location for a football stadium WAY too congested....
|
|
|
Post by dbp1990 on Jan 23, 2007 14:34:12 GMT -5
that's why i suggested bulldozing the skateboard park.....lol
|
|
|
Post by senner on Jan 23, 2007 14:40:53 GMT -5
What about staying where it is now??
|
|
|
Post by kj79 on Jan 23, 2007 14:54:37 GMT -5
i like #10 just cause its closest to me
|
|
|
Post by kj79 on Jan 23, 2007 14:56:27 GMT -5
but in all reality they should take asper's proposal before constuction costs skyrocket even more.
|
|
|
Post by the_jaf on Jan 23, 2007 15:01:17 GMT -5
that's why i suggested bulldozing the skateboard park.....lol Have you ever tried coming out of the forks after lets say like a Canada Day celebration? That would suck having to deal with that traffic after every bomber game, you'd have to leave at halftime in order avoid any traffic.
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Jan 23, 2007 15:03:00 GMT -5
I say either current location or the RREx site. Brandon is 45,000 potential fans within about 1hr 45min from that site, but is close to 2 1/2 hrs from some of the potential sites. I would consider season tix if it goes to the RREx site.
|
|
|
Post by the_jaf on Jan 23, 2007 15:03:31 GMT -5
i like #10 just cause its closest to me i also like 10, there is a LOT of empty land there. But I am curious at the location for 11, didn't think that you could fit a stadium there. Yes, RREX site would be best for people coming from Brandon. What about 6a/6b? A lot of new developments going up there. Good choice for new restaurants, retail, clubs to be built and expand in that area.
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on Jan 23, 2007 15:05:06 GMT -5
#3, #11, or #5 !
|
|
|
Post by 22Neufeld28 on Jan 23, 2007 16:23:18 GMT -5
Well i went with #11,dont know what the site actualy looks like though.Its knida centraly located,So it may be better fo public transportation more then the other sites.I would like 3 or 4 cause its so close to me,but may keep some fans from the east part of the city away.If it was more in the center of the city i would attend more games,even the current location for me is just to far outa my way since i use the bus.Yes i know the they have that Bomber bus thing going but its not for me....
As far as the Forks site and all the congestion,is that not what you want.People hanging around and buying things in the local area.Was this not the purpose of the MTSC.
|
|
|
Post by pokeybandit on Jan 23, 2007 16:35:20 GMT -5
i think it should stay where it is. Asper wants to fork over $65 million of his own money (rainy day fund probably) and people still want to explore other options? come on. keep the stadium where it is and just go with asper's deal. No other deals as sweet as this will surface. The site is also as centrally located in the city as the other possible sites near downtown (#5 & #11)
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Jan 24, 2007 14:35:03 GMT -5
6A or 6B
Lot's of room there for parking, easy to get to, traffic flows well through that area as well
Or do Asper's plan at Polo Park
|
|
|
Post by ~Jiffy~ on Jan 24, 2007 15:52:51 GMT -5
I like the area it's in now.. i think it should stay around there.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Jan 24, 2007 18:05:35 GMT -5
The only way the Asper plan will work is if it's at Polo Park so that he can have the retail.
I can't see anyone else coming forward to build a stadium, and I think the Bombers should go ahead with Asper's plan, because they will never be able to build a stadium on their own (imo)
|
|
|
Post by macitect on Jan 24, 2007 18:12:50 GMT -5
30,000 - 40,000 people at the forks for a bomber game, across from the baseball stadium. Can you IMAGINE the parking and traffic issues? (More so traffic) Don't think that would be a good location for a football stadium WAY too congested.... I don't mean to sound at all condescending, Jaf, but parking and traffic issues?! C'mon... Winnipeg could absorb 3-4 times her current population within the same geographical area and still not suffer congestion. Have you seen where the Montreal Alouettes play? There is litterally NO PARKING around there. How do they manage? Shuttle buses, and regular transit. Which is a major plus for fans anyways because they don't need to worry about how much they drink! Look at this map... the problem is not congestion, the problem is TOO MUCH SPACE! Nobody can walk anywhere because it takes 20 minutes to get to the next building for crying out loud. Instead of perpetuating this the city should actually take a plan of action, starting with the stadium, to increase the density of the core of the city. You take the bus (or train) in from your suburb and boom, you can walk anywhere downtown... and imagine if there was actually enough density to make walking around pleasurable... The following map shows where I think it should go, although the spot they have slated for the HR Museum would also be good... (I am with DBP, scrap that project! - what is that going to do for the city? Bring in people by the tens every year?!?! PULEEEEESE.... ) Then, like I said increase the density on both sides of the tracks, especially to the south of the stadium with a mix of retail, leisure (bars & restos), and residential, and simply provide better public transport all the time. The Bombers could partner with the city to provide shuttles from every part of the city along the major arteries... right up to the gates. You got a ticket? Hop on the bus. (The map I did for a project, where the plan was also to raise the importance of the Riel Esplanade as a symbolic and real link between the two major parts of the city while diminishing the barrier created by the raised tracks thereby increasing free flow between the Forks and the actual downtown - as it is people come to Forks, stay a while and go home. It does NOTHING to help revitalize the downtown.)
|
|
|
Post by hawker14 on Jan 27, 2007 1:26:58 GMT -5
i absolutely agree with those who say any new football stadium/major sports development should be located downtown, or as close as possible.
parking issues be damned. i love my car, and in winnipeg took the bus maybe twice in ten years, but seeing the c-train in operation in calgary for a flames game was a sight to see.
public transportation can work if planned properly, not to mention it's environmentally friendly, economical and safe. people should be walking around downtown anyway, and not just looking for their cars so they can escape back to the suburbs.
winnipeg has a beautiful downtown with it's architecture and history. it will be a true shame if winnipeggers don't reclaim it.
|
|
|
Post by White-Out on Jan 27, 2007 13:27:15 GMT -5
It has to be the same location! Use the Asper proposal do it now b4 as someone mentioned the prices skyrocket even further!!!
|
|
|
Post by macitect on Jan 27, 2007 17:05:41 GMT -5
i absolutely agree with those who say any new football stadium/major sports development should be located downtown, or as close as possible. parking issues be damned. i love my car, and in winnipeg took the bus maybe twice in ten years, but seeing the c-train in operation in calgary for a flames game was a sight to see. public transportation can work if planned properly, not to mention it's environmentally friendly, economical and safe. people should be walking around downtown anyway, and not just looking for their cars so they can escape back to the suburbs. winnipeg has a beautiful downtown with it's architecture and history. it will be a true shame if winnipeggers don't reclaim it. Thanks, Hawker. I concur entirely and I found it refreshing that someone agrees. (Maybe I am not as looney as I thought...)
|
|