|
Post by Kenny S on Apr 9, 2007 14:55:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rtabaracci on Apr 9, 2007 15:01:21 GMT -5
the toilet bowl returns...
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Apr 9, 2007 15:24:49 GMT -5
Looks good but not going to happen. Govt. $$ needed.
|
|
|
Post by elf on Apr 9, 2007 15:49:08 GMT -5
Drive around the proposed site. Now add 30,000 people and see if you want to spend 2 hours plus getting home.
On The Ball City!
|
|
|
Post by kj79 on Apr 9, 2007 18:25:57 GMT -5
to much needs to be done for infrastructure in that area, like elf said there would be way to much traffic, theres no easy outs.
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Apr 9, 2007 23:01:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ric O. on Apr 10, 2007 0:19:07 GMT -5
I actually think the proposed site works well. Marion and Archibald don't bottleneck any worse than St.James and Empress. They say the site for the stadium will be 10 acres bigger than the polo park location, so should be a lot of parking space. Infrastructure work will be required I agree, but Marion needs a major overhaul anyway. Maybe add a lane or 2. The whole area needs an enema in my opinion. I'm not sure about that waterfront in the picture?...must be a man made lake or something. My main concern about the area is the smell of the nearby mushroom farm and old Burns (maple leaf) packers.
I believe Ledohotski said today that the stadium is to be 30,000 but with capability to add seating if required...so presumably future Grey Cup hosting won't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by rtabaracci on Apr 10, 2007 2:09:35 GMT -5
I am going to be severely disappointed if I am forced to watch football in a dome.
|
|
|
Post by razorsedge on Apr 10, 2007 7:25:52 GMT -5
pffft, who the heck is gonna come with $520 million to build that?
|
|
|
Post by 22Neufeld28 on Apr 10, 2007 8:13:31 GMT -5
I find it funny with some ppl I know,they dont want money put into the old stadium,then they say dont build a new open air one cause it will hardly be used we need a dome,then a dome design comes along and its why?,it's too much money.I think some ppl just want another 20 year debate-LOL.
From hearing stuff on the news last night,it sounded like they would ask 80m for the entire 520m project,I think thats a good deal for that amount of money,and Canad is putting in about 250m,putting money back in Wpg,sounds like a pretty bad idea to me-lol.I mean you get a dome which some ppl want,a water park in the the city which ppl want and more retail at the old site.
Plus all this and the team would still be publicly owned,solves the ownership issue. I dont know how well it would work on this site,but the city would like something done with it.Why not a dome,is this really going to stop fans from going to games,and if it does will more ppl who dont go now go later?
How would this make the city look to other city's when we have one of 4 domes in Canada ahead of Cal and Ed,could make us look like a city thats moving forward and not looking back.
I really like football being played outdoors,but taking all this into account with more info,I could support this no problem.
And Ric.O,maybe the waterfront has something to do with the water park that is also proposed?
|
|
|
Post by kj79 on Apr 10, 2007 12:00:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Apr 10, 2007 14:41:27 GMT -5
Can anyone say "white elephant".
|
|
|
Post by Jari on Apr 10, 2007 15:25:49 GMT -5
The refurbished stadium plan by the Bombers will probably end up being the winner. A domed stadium just seems too good to be true for Winnipeg. Also, I hope the Asper plan doesn't go through because then all his money will be tied up with the stadium and the Bombers and he wont be able to chip in to buy an NHL team. In my opinion without Asper there is no chance of regaining an NHL franchise for Winnipeg...unless an American owner comes in but I've already heard people complain that if the team is owned by an American they wont support it.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Apr 10, 2007 16:53:21 GMT -5
The refurbished stadium plan by the Bombers will probably end up being the winner. A domed stadium just seems too good to be true for Winnipeg. Also, I hope the Asper plan doesn't go through because then all his money will be tied up with the stadium and the Bombers and he wont be able to chip in to buy an NHL team. In my opinion without Asper there is no chance of regaining an NHL franchise for Winnipeg...unless an American owner comes in but I've already heard people complain that if the team is owned by an American they wont support it. I prefer Aspers plan, I believe that he would be more than able to support bringing back a NHL team. Afterall, his proposal is all about the retail and the money he would make off of it. You have to be kidding that people here would not support a team with an American owner, please provide a link to that. Montreal seems to be doing just fine, as were the Canucks until McCaw sold.
|
|
|
Post by Jari on Apr 10, 2007 18:37:07 GMT -5
You have to be kidding that people here would not support a team with an American owner, please provide a link to that. I wish It was just a joke. I don't have any links because I found out about this just in talking with people on line, MSN, acquaintances etc. The first time I heard it was just unbelievable. People are like "why should I pay money to support a team if it just goes to an American?" Only in Winnipeg!
|
|
|
Post by canuck19 on Apr 12, 2007 2:13:07 GMT -5
I personnally would love to see a project like this come true but i'm afraid that the price is a bit steep for many people and I have a hard time seeing the government funding for this project.
|
|
|
Post by 22Neufeld28 on Apr 12, 2007 10:25:35 GMT -5
I just wonder in the long run would the city still not come out ahead in the tax issue.Say you build all this would the gov's still not get taxes from the ppl building/retail workers/prov tax/gst and all that,and is their not a buisness tax ontop of property taxes,wonder how much all this brings in the first 15 years,then you get more after the first 15 years.Plus you could likely stop putting Gov money into the Convention Center and sell it or do something more usefull with it.Who know's?
The only thing I know is keeping it at the same location will not get me to go to Bomber games,I read some where that they like the current location because most ppl who go to games live in St James,Well maybe thats the reason ppl go in St James cause its located their,and that may be the same reason other parts of the city dont go there.
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Apr 12, 2007 11:15:53 GMT -5
Wouldn't the RREx site be the easiest for everybody to get to? And it's only 1hr 45min from Brandon. The perimeter highway would make access easy for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by rtabaracci on Apr 12, 2007 13:07:18 GMT -5
Wouldn't the RREx site be the easiest for everybody to get to? And it's only 1hr 45min from Brandon. The perimeter highway would make access easy for everyone. Worst location in the city. Why cater to Brandon? 90% of your tickets are sold inside the perimeter, so build the stadium somewhere central.
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Apr 15, 2007 13:05:55 GMT -5
Cause central has traffic congestion and the perimeter would also allow residents from all over Winnnipeg to have easy access... not to mention the much better parking that would be available at the RREx site. Also, other events would be able to utilize the stadium at the RREx site.
|
|