Lionbackers.com

"Developer pitches idea for smaller stadium
Says Vancouver doesn't need a massive BC Place

A Vancouver developer wants to knock down BC Place Stadium and use part of the site for new condos.

But event planners say demolishing the 24-year-old stadium would hurt the city's chance to capitalize on increased convention business as the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre begins to attract larger events in anticipation of its expansion site's opening in 2009."

http://www.businessedge.ca/article.cfm/newsID/14636.cfm

I would not mind seeing a new stadium with a retractable roof. Something around 35000 seats. I would love to see the stadium rebuilt at the old empire stadium site..Great backdrop with the Lions peaks in the background. We definitely need to keep the stadium new or old in the Vancouver area, not the suburbs like Surrey.

The retractable roof, unfortunately, is a huge cost driver. That portion alone takes any stadium from being relatively affordable to being out of government's price range.

I know the thought of replacing a dome with a dome will make David's teeth grind, but if you look at a stadium like the Carrier Dome in Syracuse, it sits on a much smaller "footprint", if you will, than BC Place due to the fact that it is not built to accomodate baseball. The Carrier Dome holds 50,000 full, and the fans are literally right on top of the football game.

With fewer seats and a tighter, somewhat less flexible configuration, you could build another, smaller version of the current stadium for a pretty reasonable price.

35k, Retractable Roof stadium wouldn't be too bad for me, great atmostphere it'd be if you can get it full, but a main stream location instead of Whalley is necessary...

The Dome needs to stay! I would hate to see a playoff game with only 35K. Everybody talks about a retractable roof and a new stadium. I'm all in for that. But who's paying? If nobody is gonna pay for one, I'll be going to the dome like usual.

almo89 wrote:The Dome needs to stay! I would hate to see a playoff game with only 35K. Everybody talks about a retractable roof and a new stadium. I'm all in for that. But who's paying? If nobody is gonna pay for one, I'll be going to the dome like usual.

but if a playoff game is filled to the rafters, it can be a better atmosphere (even though I'm all for 50k) than 40k in a 60k stadium.

Man I am thinking Derek needs to add a separate forum for Stadium topics.

Wow! Big surprise, some greedy developer proposes to tear down the stadium so he can retire early and live in the Bahamas 6 months of the year! What a shocker!

OrangeShoes99 wrote:Wow! Big surprise, some greedy developer proposes to tear down the stadium so he can retire early and live in the Bahamas 6 months of the year! What a shocker!

Brian I'm with you on this one.

Lionut wrote:if you look at a stadium like the Carrier Dome in Syracuse, it sits on a much smaller "footprint", if you will, than BC Place due to the fact that it is not built to accomodate baseball. The Carrier Dome holds 50,000 full, and the fans are literally right on top of the football game.

Accomodating baseball has far less impact on a stadium's footprint than does accomodating a CFL field. A CFL field requires 87750 square feet (150 yds X 65 yds) for the inbounds playing surface itself. That compares to an NFL or NCAA surface which requires 57240 square feet (120 yds X 53 yds). The Carrier Dome's footprint would have to be over 53% larger just to accomodate the bare necessities of a CFL field. If you look around BC Place there isn't a lot of room from between the sideline to Row 1 and none in either endzone. Less capacity might allow for footprint savings moving from the field on outwards. But the overall floor surface we see can't be any smaller.

BC Place is designed so that baseball fits in by moving seats out of the way. If it wasn't for some blocks of seats being portable the current footprint wouldn't allow for baseball. If memory serves me correctly from taking in those MLB exhibition games back in the day seating from the lower rows from approximately Sec. 42 thru to 48 was removed to accomodate right field and relocated to fill in gaps elsewhere such as where no seats exist to accomodate CFL endzones. If you've ever sat in a seat with aluminum under your feet then you are in seats that can be pulled out an relocated to reconfigure the stadium for another use such as baseball.

Actually, BC Place's floorspace wasn't quite large enough for a Canadian Football field when it was built. At that time (1983), the end zones in Canadian football were 25 yards deep. The floor at BC Place was only large enough to accomodate 20 yard end zones. In 1986, the rules were changed, reducing the Canadian end zones to 20 yards.

Lionut wrote:The retractable roof, unfortunately, is a huge cost driver. That portion alone takes any stadium from being relatively affordable to being out of government's price range.

I know the thought of replacing a dome with a dome will make David's teeth grind, but if you look at a stadium like the Carrier Dome in Syracuse, it sits on a much smaller "footprint", if you will, than BC Place due to the fact that it is not built to accomodate baseball. The Carrier Dome holds 50,000 full, and the fans are literally right on top of the football game.

With fewer seats and a tighter, somewhat less flexible configuration, you could build another, smaller version of the current stadium for a pretty reasonable price.

So I've often wondered how much a retractable roof stadium would actually cost, even a small one.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/plainde ... xml&coll=2

The proposed soccer stadium for a Cleveland MLS entry would run around $145 million U.S. (an awful lot to pay for a stadium no one would actually go to, if you ask me).

I'll leave hambone and you to do the math about what that would bring the total on a 30k seat, retractable roof CFL field, but I'm guessing somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 million Canadian?

That was like an official on the record, concord pacific press brief. Concord is running out of space downtown. of course they want to develop all that land.

The problem is, where will the CFL and lions be in 5 years.. No point building a 35,000 seat stadium and attendance is over 35 every game..

Sharpo wrote:The problem is, where will the CFL and lions be in 5 years.. No point building a 35,000 seat stadium and attendance is over 35 every game..

That's the $64,000 question. However, do you really think that 35,000+ every game at BC Place is realistic? I think we have to be honest with ourselves here: we've been the top team or among the upper echelon of the league for the past several years and we're not really even close to averaging 35,000 per game. Even with last year's highly entertaining, near p erfect team, we still (only) averaged 31,000 per game. Second in league attendance is nothing to be ashamed of, but BC Place stadium is still hopelessly over-sized for the team's day-to-day needs. What's the sense of urgency to run out and buy tickets if you know they have an inventory of 59,000+ seats?

IMO the football club would be wise to target its marketing campaign to Vancouverites if it hopes to even see marginal growth at the gate. As long-time fans east of the city limits find it increasingly more difficult to find parking near BC Place (ergo more of a hassle to go to games) the team will need to tap into a new urban fan base that can walk or take an easy transit ride to home games. The Canucks' claim on this prized demographic has gone virtually unchallenged for years now and continues unabated.

DH 8)

In the past 24 hours, I've been to Ladner and back from my place in burnaby. I've seen no less than a dozen pieces of bc lions clothing (jerseys, hats, t-shirts. even a light jacket) Its growing.

That being said.. there are how many relatively new (last 10 years) towers in Downtown Vancouver.. so why hasn't there been more marketing for those people?

I'm not sure anyone can plan for bc place right now. I do give concord pacific credit for pushing their agenda forward without saying it.