dbailey62 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by pstain If you're in the 905 area then can't you take the GO bus to Yorkdale station and then go up 2 stops to Downsview? And if it's near the Keele area then you can just take the 84 Sheppard West and you can get there in like 5 mins. Besides the entrance to Downsview Park is closer to Keele than Allen Rd. (I go to York so I pass by that area everyday). I would've thought that having the stadium at the EX would've been better simply because so many events happen near that area in the summer. Carabana, Molson Indy, CNE opening for 2 weeks, Chin Picnic, etc. all happen in the EX and there could've been A LOT of cross promotion there with the MLS team. Perhaps but it also means a lot of conflicts with those events. While it would be cool to go back to the days of free admission to the EX with a sports or concert ticket, imagine the potential traffic and transportation issues. db Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Free kick But who are the bumbling boobs, the CSA or the politicians? All of them. quote:Originally posted by Free kick To anyone who feels that the CSA has dropped the ball on the whole file, I am curious to know how you would have handled it differently? York U. Stadium - well, I don't want to go in circles again with Big G , but the reality is they got played big time. The CSA brought half the money to the table, they should have been calling the shots. They should have had a signed and sealed agreement with the Argos before they went public, so the Argos could not have used this as leverage to get a better deal from the Rogers Center (and if the Argos were not serious, the CSA would not have wasted 6 months). Obviously the CSA did not have a signed legal deal because there were no penalties for the Argos. There was absolutely no reason to go public with this deal before it was signed. The other thing, the CSA needs to start going on the offensive and calling the shots. MLSE wants an MLS team? Well they have to put $10-million down for the stadium. No? Too bad. No MLS team for MLSE (the CSA has to give permission to MLS to expand into Canada). Granted, the CSA may not be in the position, but unless they find the money, there won't be a stadium nor MLS. So it doesn't really matter who they piss off at this point. Money wise, well, I think they should have been able to get more from the governments. The youth tournament is a lot bigger than the Winter Olympics in the rest of the world. It's great publicity for Canada and specifically this stadium for Toronto. The CSA represents about 3-million Canadians (incl. parents, volunteers, etc.). That's 10% of Canada's population. That's a pretty big special interest group. Downsview vs CNE. This debate should have taken place a year ago. But once again, the York debacle messed everything up. Besides the fact that I still don't understand why any of these articles this past week have been printed, since the CSA was ready to go to York, that means that the federal money did not have strings attached in terms of Downsview. So the CSA should pick one, and tell everybody to shut-up. The city is not going to put any money. No city is. It's funny how all these clowns in Vaughan, Oakville, Mississauga, Hamilton, who wanted the stadium after the York debacle have all of a sudden disappeared. As for finding the $70-million for the stadium, the main problem is they need to find all of it upfront. Meaning they can't borrow any money cause they really won't have any revenues coming in to pay the loan. So $35-million from the gov't, leaves an other $35-million. Potential other sources, MLS owners = $10-million, naming rights = $10-million. Corporate partners - find 5-10 founding partners like Coke, Microsoft, MasterCard, etc. to put up $500 000 to $2-million each for a total of about $10-million. Make it part of a sponsorship package, incl. the actual tournament, and more importantly, give them access to all the CSA members, especially the young kids, middle-class suburban families, teenagers. Companies spend an arm and a leg to get to these groups. This is a potential goldmine for the CSA. Buy a brick. Seriously, get fans across Canada to buy a brick for anywhere from $25 to $1 000 lets say (more if they want). Setup a non-profit so people get a charitable receipt for their taxes. If 100 000 people across Canada (I don't think it's as big a number as it sounds), give an avg. of $100, that's $10-million. Do it like PBS and throw in team Canada merchandise, a World Cup sweepstakes, and whatever else necessary to raise the money. There is money out there. It's the CSA's job to find it. Kerfoot is spending like $50-million(?) in Vancouver (incl. purchasing the land), the Saputo family is donating what about $10-million(?) in Montreal. Believe it or not, there are rich people in Toronto too!! I know this is not easy, and maybe sometimes the CSA gets unfairly criticized, but it is their job. Soccer in this country just seems to be moving only backward (less pro teams, worse national team results, etc.). The CSA as the head, needs to realize they have to take responsibility. But when it does do something, like at York, it gets screwed big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan Interesting that you now shift a debate that was purely about time and access to public health since it now suits you better. Not at all, unless the streetcar takes you right to where the box office would be for Ex stadium, there would be a fair amount of walking there as well once you arrive at the Ex grounds. There certainly was in the old days when the Stadium stood. I think measuring the exact time down to the second of two thus far imaginary stadiums is rather pointless, don't you think? That still leaves the issue of access (which is also more important considering the games will be held on weekends, rushing to get to the game on time after work on a weekday is a lesser factor). I suspect that for access the subway system (not to mention the TTC buses that will no doubt go right to the stadium)is better able to handle the volume of people than a streetcar (especially for games held when the CNE itself is open). I can imagine how fun it will be to go see a game the same day as the air show....... quote: The statement has lots of meaning as it was an answer to your comment that you are not sure that someone from union would get to the ex faster by steetcar than that same person could get to Downsview (check back, you asked it). Don't keep changin the question after someone gives you the answer you didn't like. I made no such "statement" about "Union" - I said I wasn't convinced that "most people working Downtown" would get to the Ex faster than they would to Downsview. I have no idea why you would think that " most people working downtown" equals "the area immediately around Union station and absolutely nothing else". Perhaps because it suits you better? [] And as I've said, the whole point is a red-herring to begin with, as most games will be held during the weekend if past MLS & Toronto soccer history is anything to go by, the people you are thinking of that work around the subway loop will not be travelling from work downtown to a game the same day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by pstain If you're in the 905 area then can't you take the GO bus to Yorkdale station and then go up 2 stops to Downsview? And if it's near the Keele area then you can just take the 84 Sheppard West and you can get there in like 5 mins. Besides the entrance to Downsview Park is closer to Keele than Allen Rd. (I go to York so I pass by that area everyday). Yeah, the former is another option, and as such pretty well puts a huge dent into the whole Go Train argument, even if they don't put a station back there. And thanks for the info about the TTC bus, I haven't taken the bus around there myself but I figured there had to be a bus which passed by. quote: I would've thought that having the stadium at the EX would've been better simply because so many events happen near that area in the summer. Carabana, Molson Indy, CNE opening for 2 weeks, Chin Picnic, etc. all happen in the EX and there could've been A LOT of cross promotion there with the MLS team. True although that does lead back into the question of access. It's often a traffic & public transit nightmare down there during those points in the summer and adding a stadium there would only increase the chaos. Its an argument against putting the stadium there on the grounds of access, but an argument for on the grounds of "coolness" (for want of a better word) to fit in with all those hip happenings downtown. But that's what I've been saying from the start of this (unfortunately now rather pedantic) debate. With the Leafs owning the team I suspect we will still get more than our fair share cross-promotion, especially in the early months of the schedule when the Leafs & Raptors are still playing (assuming the Leafs make the playoffs, that is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sstackho Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Is it just me, or does $10 million for stadium naming rights seem wildly ambitious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Spiers Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by 403 Addick Downtown T.O. is dead on the weekends and nobody goes there. Exactly why you need to redevelop the area!!! Put something there that will draw people back downtown! Sorry ... don't buy that argument! If the SkyDome (sorry, Rogers Center), Air Canada Centre, soon the new Opera House, the theatres, the restaurants, the new entertainment district west of University have done nothing to revitalise Downtown TO, why on earth do you think a soccer stadium at the CNE will do the trick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 The only way to really bring life back to a downtown area is to create residential areas in the downtown core as has been done very successfully in Vancouver in districts like Coal Harbour, Yaletown and English Bay. The Vancouver downtown core is now one of the most densely populated urban centres in the world and is people-busy 24/7. Anybody wonder why Greg Kerfoot wanted to build his stadium there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Just want to point out again before it goes too far that my original "Downtown is dead on weekends" point was in a white-collar office employees context, and only in that context, as it had been put to me that it would be easier for those people to get to a game on a Wednesday night to the Ex than to Downsview, and I was responding with the point that most games will be on a weekend, when those people in particular are unlikely to be downtown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
403 Addick Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Bill Spiers Sorry ... don't buy that argument! If the SkyDome (sorry, Rogers Center), Air Canada Centre, soon the new Opera House, the theatres, the restaurants, the new entertainment district west of University have done nothing to revitalise Downtown TO, why on earth do you think a soccer stadium at the CNE will do the trick? I'm not saying the stadium will be the solution, but it will be a large part of it. I also said that there needs to be a mix of commercial, residential, and entertainment, which Richard so helpfully pointed out is what makes many parts of Vancouver so vibrant. The stadium would of course be part of the entertainment mixture, giving the new locals something to do as well as providing a draw for people in the burbs. I'm hearing a lot of people saying with all the events in the summer there is going to be traffic chaos. In redeveloping the Ex you have to make it a Transit Orientated Development (TOD) where everything is in walking distance and well serviced by transit. The Ex will be a highly busy TOD so it will be up to the planners to accommodate for this. There will most likely be a lot of pedestrian only streets that will be served by trams which will be expensive to build, but who said redeveloping a part of metropolis would be cheap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
403 Addick Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Bill Spiers Sorry ... don't buy that argument! If the SkyDome (sorry, Rogers Center), Air Canada Centre, soon the new Opera House, the theatres, the restaurants, the new entertainment district west of University have done nothing to revitalise Downtown TO, why on earth do you think a soccer stadium at the CNE will do the trick? I'm not saying the stadium will be the solution, but it will be a large part of it. I also said that there needs to be a mix of commercial, residential, and entertainment, which Richard so helpfully pointed out is what makes many parts of Vancouver so vibrant. The stadium would of course be part of the entertainment mixture, giving the new locals something to do as well as providing a draw for people in the burbs. I'm hearing a lot of people saying with all the events in the summer there is going to be traffic chaos. In redeveloping the Ex you have to make it a Transit Orientated Development (TOD) where everything is in walking distance and well serviced by transit. The Ex will be a highly busy TOD so it will be up to the planners to accommodate for this. There will most likely be a lot of pedestrian only streets that will be served by trams which will be expensive to build, but who said redeveloping a part of metropolis would be cheap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pstain Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Richard The only way to really bring life back to a downtown area is to create residential areas in the downtown core as has been done very successfully in Vancouver in districts like Coal Harbour, Yaletown and English Bay. The Vancouver downtown core is now one of the most densely populated urban centres in the world and is people-busy 24/7. Anybody wonder why Greg Kerfoot wanted to build his stadium there? Well there are several condos being built in the Downtown Core right now. They're even kicking out poor people and demolishing the ghettos to try and build fancy condos to revitalize the Downtown area(Regent Park situation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pstain Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Richard The only way to really bring life back to a downtown area is to create residential areas in the downtown core as has been done very successfully in Vancouver in districts like Coal Harbour, Yaletown and English Bay. The Vancouver downtown core is now one of the most densely populated urban centres in the world and is people-busy 24/7. Anybody wonder why Greg Kerfoot wanted to build his stadium there? Well there are several condos being built in the Downtown Core right now. They're even kicking out poor people and demolishing the ghettos to try and build fancy condos to revitalize the Downtown area(Regent Park situation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by sstackho Is it just me, or does $10 million for stadium naming rights seem wildly ambitious? It's just you. [] Air Canada = $40-million for 20 years for ACC Bell = $60-million for 20 years in Montreal Corel Centre = $26-million for 20 years in Ottawa Pengrowth Saddledome = $20-million for 20 years in Calgary Hershey Centre in Mississauga = $25-million for 10 years MTS Centre in Winnipeg = $10-million for 10 years Labbat Centre in London = $3-million for 10 years Mile One Stadium in St. John's = $1.5-million for 10 years Ricoh Coliseum in Toronto = $10-million for 10 years You can't compare it to the NHL arenas obviously. On the other hand, you can't compare it to stadiums in smaller cities like London, and St. John's. But $25-million for an OHL rink in Mississauga? It's not for the OHL team. It's for the location and all the other events. Even the Winnipeg arena got $10-million over 10 years. I think the best comparison is the Ricoh Coliseum in Toronto which is at the CNE. They got $10-million for 10 years and that was pre-Leafs farm team, I think it would be worth more now. So any soccer stadium sponsor would get world wide publicity during the 2007 tournament, other potential international soccer matches (potentially even Womens World Cup), an MLS team would be a huge boost with constant use and visitors, youth soccer tournaments, plus all the goodwill from the soccer community. And since they said there will be a bubble, that means year round use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 How many companies actaully are willing to pay that much for rights to a stadium that would support an unknown league. Moist naming rights are gained on the cheap in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Well I thought it was already suggested in one of the articles that IMG is interested. It makes sense for them. Think of all the international sporting events they'll be able to market at that stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Mouth Soup Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by pstain Well there are several condos being built in the Downtown Core right now. They're even kicking out poor people and demolishing the ghettos to try and build fancy condos to revitalize the Downtown area(Regent Park situation). Actually, to correct you, the Regent Park buildings are being replaced by other low-income housing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sstackho Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 That's great information, Elias, re naming rights. Thank you very much. I had no idea. I wonder if the CSA needs that money paid up front, or if it's just something that's paid over time along with the mortgage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pstain Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup Actually, to correct you, the Regent Park buildings are being replaced by other low-income housing as well. Are you sure? Last I head they're mixing it up with Condos, apartments and a few low income housing. It doesn't make any sense to tear down low income housing and building new low income housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbailey62 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by pstain Are you sure? Last I head they're mixing it up with Condos, apartments and a few low income housing. It doesn't make any sense to tear down low income housing and building new low income housing. It does in this case as the concept behind Regent Park was fundamentally flawed. It was envisioned as a futuristic type of environment with lots of open space/grass and mini-communites in buildings facing in upon each other but it was a huge failure. The place needed to be levelled and started again and if in fact it is going to be a mix of condos and low income housing, that should help keep it turning into a ghetto again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Bill Spiers Sorry ... don't buy that argument! If the SkyDome (sorry, Rogers Center), Air Canada Centre, soon the new Opera House, the theatres, the restaurants, the new entertainment district west of University have done nothing to revitalise Downtown TO, why on earth do you think a soccer stadium at the CNE will do the trick? Downtown TO is far from dead. Anyone whose been there will have seen the huge number of condo projects going up now. Bay Street is dead , understandably, but every other street there is fairly busy on Weekends, especially Yonge, Queen, College, plus Kensington Market, St Lawrence Mkt, the Entertainment District etc. If stadiums are to be part of Urban Revitalization then Downsview should get it. Downtown's cup runneth over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by dbailey62 It does in this case as the concept behind Regent Park was fundamentally flawed. It was envisioned as a futuristic type of environment with lots of open space/grass and mini-communites in buildings facing in upon each other but it was a huge failure. The place needed to be levelled and started again and if in fact it is going to be a mix of condos and low income housing, that should help keep it turning into a ghetto again. Actually you are both right....RP needed re-doing (badly) so they are redeveloping it in phases which will see the existing public housing replaced by new housing with a guarantee of no less units for lower income folks. Mixed in, however, are going to be "at market" projects and commercial space. The concept of mixing those in is two-fold..... ....firstly, the profit generated from the "at market" units will go towards paying the cost of redeveloping. ....secondly, mixed areas tend to be more successful and less "stigmatized". ie. the richer/wealthier are more likely to support programs that reduce crime/poverty if the issues being addressed are right there in their own neighbourhoods rather in some far off conceptual "ghetto" that they have never been to. The biggest challege is usually selling at market units in such neighbourhoods but it is thought that the locational dynamics of RP are so strong that the market will give it consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Yeah, the former is another option, and as such pretty well puts a huge dent into the whole Go Train argument, even if they don't put a station back there. And thanks for the info about the TTC bus, I haven't taken the bus around there myself but I figured there had to be a bus which passed by. I am sorry, I have to ask...are you suggesting, now, that a GO bus to a subway to a local bus is now "convenient access" when earlier you suggested that my subway to a streetcar was not? You and I might actually be speaking in different languages when it comes to the definition of convenient access. Transit (and getting people on transit) is a bit of a hobby/passion of mine and I can tell you that number of changes/transfers are a huge issue raised by a significant number of respondents in any poll asking what it would take to get people to "leave the car at home". Suburbanites often quote the challenges of taking a local bus to a GO station to TTC stop as just too much trouble given the number of changes (and chances for inconvenience caused by missed transfers) and the complications of multiple payments/tickets. It is the reason the Ontario government is placing such a major emphasis on this new single payment transit card they have been working on. Yes, you are technically right, people in the 905 areas can get to Downsview via public transit....I would hazard a guess that, techincally, you can get anywhere via public transit if you were willing to give it a go.....unfortunately, people will throw away the public transit option if it sounds like "take X to here, then wait a few minutes and take Y to there and then transfer to Z which will get you where you are going". The Ex has the ability to say to TTCers "take the 509 from Union" and GOers "Take the Lakeshore line to the Exhibition station". It is not all 905ers (not even me as I am served by a different GO line) but a significant amount of them have access to the Lakeshore (east and west) lines. It is why, in order, The Molson Indy, The SkyDome, The Leafs and Raptors (separately before they merged at the ACC) and the Ricoh all passed on the Downsview option in favour of sites downtown or at the EX. Other than having their arm twisted by the feds ("take our free land not the city's and we will give you $27 million), I have no idea why the Soccer folks (or you) think they are smarter than any of those organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I think they were having their arm twisted. So they chose Downsview in the interest of not having the stadium go to Vaughan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan I am sorry, I have to ask...are you suggesting, now, that a GO bus to a subway to a local bus is now "convenient access" when earlier you suggested that my subway to a streetcar was not? No, I'm simply providing further examples of additional access to Downsview that hasn't been mentioned previously. The subway stop itself with no further transfers should be the most convenient access by public transit, that still remains the case. Pointing out additional ways that people can access the site is obviously an argument for Downsview having greater access than the Ex, not lesser. quote: unfortunately, people will throw away the public transit option if it sounds like "take X to here, then wait a few minutes and take Y to there and then transfer to Z which will get you where you are going". Which I'd say is exactly how most people in the city feel about taking public transit to the Ex! quote: Other than having their arm twisted by the feds ("take our free land not the city's and we will give you $27 million), I have no idea why the Soccer folks (or you) think they are smarter than any of those organizations. Espousing a different viewpoint doesn't necessarily mean you are claiming to have a superior mind to another individual or organization. If you want to keep up the offensive comments like that then you can take your debates up with someone else who might be interested in that sort of mud-slinging fest - don't take your debating frustrations out on me. I have often said on this board that either location, the Ex or Downsview, would be great. The Ex would have the downtown aura that only downtown is able to bring right now and would be traditional for us old NASL fans. Downsview would be better from an access point of view. The arguments of the Deputy Mayor (who is as biased on the issue as they come) that Downsview is poor because it can't be accessed by anything other than a car are not persuasive, as has been demonstrated more times than I care to remember. The "Soccer folks" who did advocate Downsview even before the Feds insisted on it (and before you start insulting their intelligence again you might want to wake up to the fact that some of those people have posted in this very thread) took into account some different considerations that those other organizations either didn't and/or wouldn't need to, such as where their existing fan base is already located - and its not closer to the Ex! There's also a massive difference nowadays between locating something at Union Station & locating it at the Ex. Heck, if the CSA could blow up the Skydome and put the stadium there instead, that would better access wise than the Ex or Downsview. Unfortunately the Skydome got there first. The Ricoh centre has been a massive flop thus far by the way, so I'm not sure why you would want to cite that as evidence of a smart move on anyone else's part (though it was doomed no matter where it went in my view, but that's another story). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Toronto star had an editorial onthe stadium today. Personally I think their arguments against Downsview are actually an argument in its favour. The area's revitalization needs are great, and I'm surprised that the Star which is so pro- revitalization is so willing to brush that aside. Source Sep. 12, 2005. 01:00 AM Editorial: No place for a stadium Toronto's civic leaders are entirely correct in kicking against plans to locate a $60 million soccer stadium on federal land at Downsview Park, especially with a site at Exhibition Place ideally suited for a stadium. Despite the possibility of a downtown location, the Canadian Soccer Association recently announced it favoured Downsview as the home of a new 20,000-seat stadium. The federal government is paying $27 million toward the project, and federal ministers from the Toronto area have praised the site. But contrary to the claims of Ken Dryden, federal minister of social development, Downsview is not a "great location." Far from it. Downsview could be more accurately described as "Collenette's folly," after then defence minister David Collenette, who a decade ago released plans to turn the former air force base into a vast and costly urban park. Today, it remains a waste of space — and money. Locating a stadium there might serve federal interests by finally putting something useful on that land. But it wouldn't serve the interests of most Toronto-area residents. Exhibition Place enjoys easy access by public transit and the Gardiner Expressway. In addition, the Ex has a proven track record of running a stadium while Downsview's history is one of empty promises and failed hopes. Mayor David Miller and others on city council have spoken out against the folly of a Downsview location. They should continue doing so — and federal officials should listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.