How Will Bc Place Compare To Other Stadiums In North America?

[northwest2k]

With all these supposed "renovations" people are saying it will be world class. But will BC Place really be a world class facility? Compared to top tier stadiums like the new Dallas Cowboy Stadium, University of Phoenix Stadium, Lucas Oil Stadium?

Its obvious to see that BC Place can't compare.

[Rob2012]

So?

They cost a couple of billion between them! As long as it all works, people can see what's going on in the rectangle in the middle and the roof stays in place then I'm sure it'll be fine.

I don't know enough about the renovations to tell you whether it will compare to these brand-spanking new venues, though you're right that it seems unlikely. But I'm sure it'll be more than good enough; whether it's "world class" or not is entirely subjective and getting into debates over semantics.

Welcome to the forum btw.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Rob ♪

[Diana]

So?

They cost a couple of billion between them! As long as it all works, people can see what's going on in the rectangle in the middle and the roof stays in place then I'm sure it'll be fine.

I don't know enough about the renovations to tell you whether it will compare to these brand-spanking new venues, though you're right that it seems unlikely. But I'm sure it'll be more than good enough; whether it's "world class" or not is entirely subjective and getting into debates over semantics.

Welcome to the forum btw.

I suspect that costs to actually run BC Place will be high but manageable.

On-going costs for the large venues in the USA will be intersting to see. Many cities in Canada are very careful about building facilities that the taxpayers don't have to pay large amounts to actually run. So, they may have fewer bells and whistles but they cost less to run after they are built.

[jim jones]

I suspect that costs to actually run BC Place will be high but manageable.

On-going costs for the large venues in the USA will be intersting to see. Many cities in Canada are very careful about building facilities that the taxpayers don't have to pay large amounts to actually run. So, they may have fewer bells and whistles but they cost less to run after they are built.

The thing is with Canada and Stadiums is there is no business model outside of Toronto that warrants a new stadium. And the CFL in Toronto certainly does not warrant building a new stadium for. If the Buffalo Bills were to relocate to Toronto then a new stadium would be built and demanded actually. The Highest Profit for a CFL team is 650,000 CDN dollars a year for the Edmonton Eskimos and most others just make their payrolls which are modest compared to other major pro sports leagues in North America. 650,000 is the salary of most rookie players in the NHL fort eh first three years. most five years NHL players make what an entire CFL team has for a Salary Cap.

The Priority in Canada has been the National Sport Ice Hockey which you have newer Arenas for the Canadian Teams pretty much across the board. If a city does not keep up then you end up like Quebec City or Winnipeg losing your franchise to a US city.

Bc Place is now twice the age of the average stadium in NFL football or Major League Baseball. BC place is the second newest stadium in Canada for the CFL and it is now over 25 years old. You compare that with a Texas Stadium opened in 1971 that BC place opened in 1983 and BC place is getting into that zone that it would be replaced if it was in the NFL.

A Rectangle as Rob has said is a Rectangle but respectfully Rob that is the thinking that had England with the inventory of Soccer stadiums it does for age until recently. The mindset in Canada and the UK is much different from the United States in regards to pro sports where the Team owners play civic and state governments against each other to get new sports places. The big thing is the states is getting more money per customer rather then shear capacity. you do that with the offerings of Club Seating and Corporate suites among other things.

You would never have a case of Manchester United saying OK city council we need a Billion dollar stadium and if you don't fund it we move to Newcastle because they will build it for us. The Baltimore Colts could have the glory years of going to the superbowl with Johnnie Unitis but the owner could then spirit the team off to Indianapolis in the 1970's for a new Domed stadium Rent free practically. England has clubs with a century of staying in one place and Canada for the CFL has no place for teams to move to. In the states even boarding counties and bedroom cities will poach a team from the larger city . Phoenix lost the NFL Cardinals ,who they took from St Louis, to the bedroom community of Glendale it is still now the Arizona Cardinals.

with the CFL and premiership league you have a status quo

holding pattern over decades. The CFL the problem is declining interest in general as many other things compete with it in Canada. Premiership league in England does not have to look over the shoulder at a Possible National Football league team coming into the largest market or the NBA or the spread of NHL Hockey in Canada from the Traditional Toronto and Montreal Base.

Until the Millennium Stadium there was hardly a new stadium built in all the the UK including for the last hosting of the World Cup in 1966. It is the stuff around the rectangle that is modernized. Club Seating , Skyboxes , Meeting and Hospitality suites , The Concourse levels, food services . With the CFL you are looking at the majority of stadiums that are much older then BC Place. The opening of CFL stadiums by City and Opening year are as follows

Calgary 1961 , Regina 1940 , Winnipeg 1953, Hamilton 1930, Montreal 1915 Ottawa when it has been in the CFL 1917

Edmonton 1978 , Toronto 1989. With Winnipeg they talk of a new stadium but they need federal and provincial money which so far is not forthcoming. I would not doubt the David Asper offer of 40 million dollars to be meet with 40 million by both the feds and province will not be met.

A modern Stadium is really in the eye of the beholder. The ironic thing about the Texas stadium is that much of the financing came from the team issuing bonds . In order to get seasons tickets you had to be a bond holder. I think i read it was 150 dollars in 1969 and the bonds came up for maturity with a 50 dollar profit for 40 years. The demand for season tickets in Dallas would be totally beyond the capacity of the stadium and anyone moving from the area could sell their bonds back to the Team for them to be marked up .

Jim jones

[Rob2012]

You would never have a case of Manchester United saying OK city council we need a Billion dollar stadium and if you don't fund it we move to Newcastle because they will build it for us.

You're right, its so rare in English football for a club to move.

Even with a small club like Wimbledon relocation was such a major thing - something which hadn't happened in English football for decades - that it caused uproar amongst English football fans. Milton Keynes Dons (the team which replaced Wimbledon in the Football League) is still not liked by many and most of the fans of the original Wimbledon FC now support AFC Wimbledon - a club set up by disgruntled fans - who play in the sixth tier of the English league system.

Milton Keynes Dons Football Club (usually abbreviated to MK Dons) is a professional football club founded in 2004, based in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, England. They will play the 2008–09 season in Football League One, the third tier of English football. The side's home ground is the stadium:mk in Milton Keynes.

The club was relaunched under its current name on 21 June 2004, nine months after the then Wimbledon F.C. moved to Milton Keynes. Milton Keynes Dons is legally a continuation of Wimbledon F.C., however after negotiation with the Wimbledon Independent Supporters' Association, mediated by the Football Supporters Federation, the club agreed to return the trophies and memorabilia of Wimbledon F.C. to the London Borough of Merton, and to make no claims on the history of Wimbledon F.C. thereafter. This step was taken in part to ensure the recognition of the Milton Keynes Dons Supporters Association by the Football Supporters Federation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_dons

I don't suppose (correct me if I'm wrong) there are any teams that have relocated in the US who have, because of their relocation, been forced to give up their right to lay claim to their previous history or any trophies the club had accumulated in its former guise.

A Rectangle as Rob has said is a Rectangle but respectfully Rob that is the thinking that had England with the inventory of Soccer stadiums it does for age until recently...

Until the Millennium Stadium there was hardly a new stadium built in all the the UK including for the last hosting of the World Cup in 1966. It is the stuff around the rectangle that is modernized. Club Seating , Skyboxes , Meeting and Hospitality suites , The Concourse levels, food services .

You're not wrong there. I knew it was rare for a club to move grounds up until about two decades ago but I didn't realise quite how rare it was. I found this on wikipedia:

When Scunthorpe United moved to Glanford Park in 1988, it was the first time a Football League club (i.e. top four divisions) had moved to a new purpose-built home since 1945. Up to this point, most sides were playing in grounds that were more-or-less structurally unchanged for a century.

A lot has changed since then of course and even the majority of modernised stadiums are pretty good, if not world class. There are advantages and disadvantages. Clubs get to stay where they and their fans belong. The stadiums all look different and unique; something which can get lost when building new grounds. The tight configuration of older style stadiums also means they often generate a better atmosphere than some newer ones. Concourses are smaller and it can take a while to get in and out of older grounds but most of the good ones have more than enough good things about them to make up for this. Modernisation, done properly can leave something much better than a new build. Of course, sometimes clubs can't modernise their existing ground for various reasons (houses around the edge, railways lines etc.).

The big thing is the states is getting more money per customer rather then shear capacity.

That's starting to happen here as well. Arsenal, since opening the 60,000 Emirates stadium, now earn more money per match than any other team in Europe because of the number of corporate boxes in the ground. All new-build stadiums, especially in cities like London, will cater for a large corporate contingent - clubs would be mad not to follow Arsenal's model. What we haven't had here yet (thankfully) is downgrading capacity in new-builds to increase demand and therefore ticket prices (as I see some baseball teams doing in the US, notably the two NY teams). New stadiums are always bigger than the old ones in England - and normally significantly bigger. Since all stadiums became all-seater by law after tragedies like Hillsborough, the capacities of our stadiums have been reduced but the fan-bases of teams have stayed more or less the same (if not grown). So, whilst teams will cater more and more for corporate people, the overriding reason for new stadiums isn't the same as in the US, but is simply a matter of increasing capacity post-Taylor Report.

The Taylor Report and the subsequent laws forced us to modernise our stadiums to such an extent that they're now amongst the best in the world and countries like Italy are following our model for what a modern football stadium should be like. It was a short-sharp shock caused by utter tragedy that lead to English football stadiums modernising so completely and so quickly.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Rob ♪

[OlympicGames]

With all these supposed "renovations" people are saying it will be world class. But will BC Place really be a world class facility? Compared to top tier stadiums like the new Dallas Cowboy Stadium, University of Phoenix Stadium, Lucas Oil Stadium?

Its obvious to see that BC Place can't compare.

Given that Vancouver/BC couldn't get it's act together to complete the full renovations in time for the games in 2010, it won't be world class during the OWG.

[jim jones]

You're right, its so rare in English football for a club to move.

Even with a small club like Wimbledon relocation was such a major thing - something which hadn't happened in English football for decades - that it caused uproar amongst English football fans. Milton Keynes Dons (the team which replaced Wimbledon in the Football League) is still not liked by many and most of the fans of the original Wimbledon FC now support AFC Wimbledon - a club set up by disgruntled fans - who play in the sixth tier of the English league system.

Milton Keynes Dons Football Club (usually abbreviated to MK Dons) is a professional football club founded in 2004, based in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, England. They will play the 2008–09 season in Football League One, the third tier of English football. The side's home ground is the stadium:mk in Milton Keynes.

The club was relaunched under its current name on 21 June 2004, nine months after the then Wimbledon F.C. moved to Milton Keynes. Milton Keynes Dons is legally a continuation of Wimbledon F.C., however after negotiation with the Wimbledon Independent Supporters' Association, mediated by the Football Supporters Federation, the club agreed to return the trophies and memorabilia of Wimbledon F.C. to the London Borough of Merton, and to make no claims on the history of Wimbledon F.C. thereafter. This step was taken in part to ensure the recognition of the Milton Keynes Dons Supporters Association by the Football Supporters Federation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_dons

I don't suppose (correct me if I'm wrong) there are any teams that have relocated in the US who have, because of their relocation, been forced to give up their right to lay claim to their previous history or any trophies the club had accumulated in its former guise.

You're not wrong there. I knew it was rare for a club to move grounds up until about two decades ago but I didn't realise quite how rare it was. I found this on wikipedia:

When Scunthorpe United moved to Glanford Park in 1988, it was the first time a Football League club (i.e. top four divisions) had moved to a new purpose-built home since 1945. Up to this point, most sides were playing in grounds that were more-or-less structurally unchanged for a century.

A lot has changed since then of course and even the majority of modernised stadiums are pretty good, if not world class. There are advantages and disadvantages. Clubs get to stay where they and their fans belong. The stadiums all look different and unique; something which can get lost when building new grounds. The tight configuration of older style stadiums also means they often generate a better atmosphere than some newer ones. Concourses are smaller and it can take a while to get in and out of older grounds but most of the good ones have more than enough good things about them to make up for this. Modernisation, done properly can leave something much better than a new build. Of course, sometimes clubs can't modernise their existing ground for various reasons (houses around the edge, railways lines etc.).

That's starting to happen here as well. Arsenal, since opening the 60,000 Emirates stadium, now earn more money per match than any other team in Europe because of the number of corporate boxes in the ground. All new-build stadiums, especially in cities like London, will cater for a large corporate contingent - clubs would be mad not to follow Arsenal's model. What we haven't had here yet (thankfully) is downgrading capacity in new-builds to increase demand and therefore ticket prices (as I see some baseball teams doing in the US, notably the two NY teams). New stadiums are always bigger than the old ones in England - and normally significantly bigger. Since all stadiums became all-seater by law after tragedies like Hillsborough, the capacities of our stadiums have been reduced but the fan-bases of teams have stayed more or less the same (if not grown). So, whilst teams will cater more and more for corporate people, the overriding reason for new stadiums isn't the same as in the US, but is simply a matter of increasing capacity post-Taylor Report.

The Taylor Report and the subsequent laws forced us to modernise our stadiums to such an extent that they're now amongst the best in the world and countries like Italy are following our model for what a modern football stadium should be like. It was a short-sharp shock caused by utter tragedy that lead to English football stadiums modernising so completely and so quickly.

I agree with you on the Emirates Stadium and what I mean is but it is a recent trend in the UK from the mid 1990's on.

Basically you have a case of many ownerships in Premier League having the thinking of "what is not broke don't fix" . Hillsborough and incidents showed the system was broke at that time. Because Sports teams in the UK are so much of the city's name the Club owners don't have the type of card to play with the local governments on new stadiums or redevelopment. I rarely hear the name of Manchester United being the "Red Devils" . I think also you have the influence of foreign control come into play with premiership teams. American Owners for Man U among others certainly brings in new ideas.

I am sure English clubs get their fair share of Tax money but the America Sports Franchises are king of extortion for a new Stadium or Arena.

The hanging on for Stadiums in the UK reminds me of the Boston Red Soxes for Major League Baseball and Fenway Stadium . The Same can be said for the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field. Ironic that people think Corporate Names for a Stadium is something new when Wrigley Stadium is so very old and the Wrigley Chewing Gum Family owned both the Team and the Stadium. Ironically George Steinberner .owner of the New York Yankees threatened to move the team to New Jersey. That would be like moving Manchester United to Liverpool . The ploy worked as incensed Manhattan Islanders would pressure the city to make the new yankee stadium happen at most any cost.

Perhaps absence of Club Seating is the difference between North American teams and UK teams . There can also be different tax laws that make Club seating a thing to be sold in America and not in the UK.

Basically in regards to Championships it is indeed not the City's Championship but the franchise's in North America. I am very sure the Baltimore Colts packed up the Championship stuff and took it to Indianapolis just like the Cleveland Browns packed decades of stuff from that city when they relocated to Baltimore which did the same to Cleveland as Indianapolis did to Baltimore. I wonder with the NFL awarding a new ownership group the Browns name after Baltimore received the Browns and changed the name to the Ravens if the new Browns got things back . Confused I certainly AM. i know one thing the Brown's didnt win any championships so there probably was not much . Even the Montreal Canadians at one point threatened to move of the island of Montreal if they didn't get better commercial taxes on their new Arena .

Jim jones

[mr.x]

I see you've made your way here northwest2k after being banned from Skyscraperpage and Skyscrapercity for trolling just like yellowvest....several times in fact after you tried to come back with other accounts.

Anyhow, there will be $65-million in interior renovations in time for the Winter Olympics. Incidentally, that's more than what Torino spent to renovate their 80-year old Stadio Communale for the 2006 Winter Games and also more than what Salt Lake City spent to upgrade Ricce Eccles Stadium for 2002.

Only after the $200-million retractable roof (which includes a new four-sided videoboard, lighting system, sound system) as well as a massive glass facade around the stadium will the stadium be "world-class". And the $200-million phase II renovation won't be complete until 2011/2012.

A better question will be "how will BC Place compare to other stadiums in Canada?" There's no competition with the new billion-plus dollar stadiums in the United Stadiums nor is it viable for Vancouver to build such a costly new stadium. When the $264-million renovations have been complete entirely, BC Place will be the crown jewel of stadiums in Canada.

[northwest2k]

I see you've made your way here northwest2k after being banned from Skyscraperpage and Skyscrapercity for trolling just like yellowvest....several times in fact after you tried to come back with other accounts.

Anyhow, there will be $65-million in interior renovations in time for the Winter Olympics. Incidentally, that's more than what Torino spent to renovate their 80-year old Stadio Communale for the 2006 Winter Games and also more than what Salt Lake City spent to upgrade Ricce Eccles Stadium for 2002.

Only after the $200-million retractable roof (which includes a new four-sided videoboard, lighting system, sound system) as well as a massive glass facade around the stadium will the stadium be "world-class". And the $200-million phase II renovation won't be complete until 2011/2012.

A better question will be "how will BC Place compare to other stadiums in Canada?" There's no competition with the new billion-plus dollar stadiums in the United Stadiums nor is it viable for Vancouver to build such a costly new stadium. When the $264-million renovations have been complete entirely, BC Place will be the crown jewel of stadiums in Canada.

Woohoo the crown jewel of stadiums in Canada. Thats equivalent to being a piece of corn on a turd.

The stadiums in the US are world class because they're the best in the world and set the bar. The proposed BC Place falls flat on its face in comparison. So obviously it will never be world class.

[YellowVest]

mr. x you're a fuckin idiot... get the hell off this forum

[Faster]

Rob - teams have moved and been forced by the league to pick new names and in essence become new franchises so that if in the future a team moves back to the city. The Seattle SuperSonics are an example. I am a supporter of a team that moved, the Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche. If a team moved back to Quebec they would have the Nordique name but the franchise marks will still belong to Colorado.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Faster

[Fox334]

An exception to this was in the MLS. The San Jose Earthquake, one of the league's most successful league, moved to Houston (as the Houston Dynamos) due to a disagreement over a new stadium, but the name and all the records of the team stayed in San Jose in anticipation of a future expansion team (which began operating last season).

[jim jones]

Rob - teams have moved and been forced by the league to pick new names and in essence become new franchises so that if in the future a team moves back to the city. The Seattle SuperSonics are an example. I am a supporter of a team that moved, the Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche. If a team moved back to Quebec they would have the Nordique name but the franchise marks will still belong to Colorado.

Lets Face it there is a great deal more movement of Teams in North America then there is in Europe so a Status quo will tend to hang around in regards to stadiums but I agree with Rob that Clubs in the Uk have become aware that they generally have to upgrade or build new stadiums . They have been since the mid 1990's . Canada is a matter of Teams don't have a choice of relocation . No city has mega dollars to relocate a CFL team to there city so the Status Quo will continue.

As to the Bc Place nothing will get accomplished to put the stadium in a World Class position and neither the opening/closing ceremonies or the BC Lions really require it. Vanoc needs to get the athletes village finished as the top priority. in regards to corporate suites and Club seating it is not needed for either tennant.

Say what with the swearing here ? I can get hot under the collar with some here at times but dropping the F bomb what with that ?

Jim Jones

[mr.x]

Lets Face it there is a great deal more movement of Teams in North America then there is in Europe so a Status quo will tend to hang around in regards to stadiums but I agree with Rob that Clubs in the Uk have become aware that they generally have to upgrade or build new stadiums . They have been since the mid 1990's . Canada is a matter of Teams don't have a choice of relocation . No city has mega dollars to relocate a CFL team to there city so the Status Quo will continue.

As to the Bc Place nothing will get accomplished to put the stadium in a World Class position and neither the opening/closing ceremonies or the BC Lions really require it. Vanoc needs to get the athletes village finished as the top priority. in regards to corporate suites and Club seating it is not needed for either tennant.

Well, we might have the MLS coming here and there seems to be quite a bit of potential with both the league and the Vancouver franchise seeing how much of a success Toronto FC is.

Say what with the swearing here ? I can get hot under the collar with some here at times but dropping the F bomb what with that ?

Jim Jones

That's his way of conceding.

http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=193219

[YellowVest]

The Minnesota Vikings are threatening to pull out of Minneapolis unless they build a Retractable Roof stadium in downtown Minneapolis for them to play in. The State had some financing lined up, something in the order of $ 600 million, but it's not moving forward as far as I know.

The Minnesota Twins move out of the Metrodome in 2010 into a new Baseball specific Stadium. As of next year the Twins will be the only sports tenant in the Metrodome.

With the implosion of the RCA Dome in Indianapolis, the Minneapolis Metrodome and the CarrierDome in Syracuse, NY remain the only other "Teflon Domes" in North America other than BC Place.

You'd have to spend $ 600 million on BC Place to make it comparable in quality to some other NFL Stadiums like the new 100,000 seat Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, TX.

Improvements to BC Place, some of which will be done by the Olympics, include:

- Landscaping

- Demolition Including Removal Of Existing Roof

- Micropile Installation

- Asphalt

- Reinforcing Steel

- Concrete Formwork

- Carbon Fibre Wrap

- Masonry

- Steel Structure

- Miscellaneous Metals

- Lockstrand Cable

- Fixed Roof Fabric

- Retractable Tenara Roof Fabric

- ETFE Fabric On Facade

- Mechanized Retractable Roof System

- Sound System (Including Hoisting)

- Architectural Cladding

- Glass And Glazing

- Roofing

- Interior Finishes

- Mechanical

- Electrical

- Sprinklers

- Building Controls

- Acoustic Abatement

- Exterior Building Maintenance

- Elevator Upgrades

- Arena Seating

- Traffic Deck Coatings

- Amphitheatre Production Rigging

[Faster]

Rob - the reason baseball stadiums are getting smaller is not to increase demand and price but to get ride of empty seats, the average attendance for the league is in the low 30,000, while most stadiums seat 45,000+. Also because there is less baseball/football combinations anymore have baseball specific stadiums that have a good atmosphere and better sightliness, which results in a couple 1000 less seats. Though the Mets average is 51,000 and they have a 45,000 seat stadium.

As for Canada/USA comparison. You can't compare, the US has a 310,000,000 population compared to Canada's 34 million. With no NFL team in Canada there is no need for a billion dollar stadium. An NFL game can generate anywhere from 10million to 100million dollars per game and most teams generate 250 to 350 million dollars in revenue a year. That means that in 4 years the team would generate enough to pay for a billion dollar stadium and justify the expense. CFL teams make 0.5 million dollars a year if they are lucky. So building a billion dollar white elephant is a waste of money.

No city in Canada needs a billion dollar stadium.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Faster

[mr.x]

As for Canada/USA comparison. You can't compare, the US has a 310,000,000 population compared to Canada's 34 million. With no NFL team in Canada there is no need for a billion dollar stadium. An NFL game can generate anywhere from 10million to 100million dollars per game and most teams generate 250 to 350 million dollars in revenue a year. That means that in 4 years the team would generate enough to pay for a billion dollar stadium and justify the expense. CFL teams make 0.5 million dollars a year if they are lucky. So building a billion dollar white elephant is a waste of money.

No city in Canada needs a billion dollar stadium.

Agreed....it doesn't make sense at all. The ~$264-million in renovations for the stadium are meant to extend the life span of the facility by 20-25 years and make necessary improvements to outdated features of the stadium. The cost to do all those renovations is certainly feasible.

[Rob2012]

Rob - the reason baseball stadiums are getting smaller is not to increase demand and price but to get ride of empty seats, the average attendance for the league is in the low 30,000, while most stadiums seat 45,000+. Also because there is less baseball/football combinations anymore have baseball specific stadiums that have a good atmosphere and better sightliness, which results in a couple 1000 less seats. Though the Mets average is 51,000 and they have a 45,000 seat stadium.

That surprises me a bit; I just assumed baseball was strong as it ever was and the reason for smaller new stadiums was to generate artifically high ticket prices. Nor did I realise until I just wikied it that both NYC baseball stadiums used to host football teams.

Are the lower attendences because baseball is losing out to the NFL juggernaut in the US or do they just 'look' low now that the football teams have moved out?

If I'm asking dumb questions just tell me. I find American sporting culture fascinating and don't know half as much about it as I should. I plead ignorance!

[Faster]

It has more to do with crappy teams not getting support and day games during the week.

[jim jones]

That surprises me a bit; I just assumed baseball was strong as it ever was and the reason for smaller new stadiums was to generate artifically high ticket prices. Nor did I realise until I just wikied it that both NYC baseball stadiums used to host football teams.

Are the lower attendences because baseball is losing out to the NFL juggernaut in the US or do they just 'look' low now that the football teams have moved out?

If I'm asking dumb questions just tell me. I find American sporting culture fascinating and don't know half as much about it as I should. I plead ignorance!

I would not say you have asked a dumb question at all actually just the exposure you would have to it is not as great . It is not as simple as crowds declining for Baseball either because overall attendance continues to keep pace with what it always has been. What you have with expansion of the baseball with more games available and Baseballl Teams play many more times in a season then Football teams despite the NFL expansion at the same time.

It is easier to fill 65,000 to 80,000 seat for 10 Home games for the NFL then it is 45000 seats 60 home games for the average MLB team. The vast majority of NFL Games are on Sunday Afternoons . 17 weeks of NFL you have at least 8 or 9 games on Sundays . Mondays you have one Game and the ladder part of the season you have single Thursday night games in addition to the Sunday and Monday games.

You can have 2 or 3 weekday games for a franchise for a Baseball team and a Weekend game if not more. Then you can also have double header games which are two games in one day back to back with baseball. Double Header games are typical to make up for rained out games earlier in the season. They are becoming fewer as domed stadiums are built.

The thing people desire in a baseball stadium is the look of a stadium of the 1940's and 1950's which were typically smaller then the 1960s and 1970s stadiums called Cookie cutter stadiums. Cookie cutter stadiums are basically like the Melbourne Cricket oval or Maracana . A big circular stadium.The desire for Premiership fans to be close to the action is like baseball fans in the same way. The new stadium for the Texas Rangers Came complete with Structural I Beam pillars in the Cheap seats like was typical of the old stadiums even in the main seating. These Beams would have some with blocked views. The Old Yankee Stadium had this in the until the mid 1970s until they renovated and removed the pillars Ironically.

Cookie Cutter stadiums were designed for dual use American Football and Baseball. Shea Stadium in New York is like a Cookie Cutter stadium and hosted the NY Jets in the 60's and early 70's. The compromise never has either tenants fans happy. The fans too far away for Baseball , The football team having to play their first or season games across the Baseball Infield areas which have dirt for sliding areas. If you had the traditional sliding areas and infield for baseball on a Football field then the dirt can extent the width of the football field at one end of play. Not the greatest on the goal line or for the field goal kicker to have the ball placed in. This would be for the Month of September as the end of the baseball season the grounds keepers would sod the infield dirt areas.

Cookie Cutter stadia in America included Busch Stadium, St Louis, Three Rivers Stadium ,Pittsburgh, Fulton County Stadium , Atlanta, Riverfront Stadium ,Cincinnati , Oakland's Stadium, Veterans Stadium, Philadelphia. All had both the NFL and Major League Baseball Tenants. Even Dodgers Stadium in Los Angeles and Candlestick Park in San Francisco had the Cookie cutter type idea but were more like Shea Stadium . All those stadiums except Dodger's stadium have lost both the NFL and Major League Baseball Tenants with the two leagues getting purpose built stadiums for their sports. Even a Small city like Cleveland had a compromise stadium built in the 1930s to host both football and baseball. Cleveland replaced Memorial Stadium with Jacobs Field for the Cleveland Indians Baseball team and Cleveland Browns stadium for the football team. The last of the Two Tenant Stadium in North America is Toronto's Rogers place formally know as the skydome.

The Retro 1940's styled stadiums came first with the new Cominsky Park in Chicago but more famously with Baltimore's Camden Yards. You have the feel of the old parks but also have the modern trappings that make money. The inner concourse levels are like Shopping Malls. You don't have wooden chairs like the old days .

To be fair to baseball your storied franchises like the Yankees , Red Soxes, Dodgers, Giants , Cubs are going to have every game pretty much sold out. The Expansion teams well they are generally the ones you see lower attendance for in smaller parks. Toronto's problem is that they have the last of the cookie cutter ideal at the time that American teams were going the way of the retro stadium. The Argos CFL team could not support the Rogers Centre being a lone tenant.

You could run a video of any mid season game outside of the big name clubs from the 1970's and you will basically find the same thing plenty of empty sections in a Cookie Cutter stadium or even smaller stadiums . A big problem is that the front sections are Are Box seats usually bought for seasons tickets by corporations. If it is an afternoon game on a weekday then most likely no one has the time to come out from an office. Most games between expansion clubs in mid season draw poorly . If the Red Soxes, Dodgers or Yankees come to an expansion clubs stadium then you see huge crowds in mid season.

There are more afternoon games now because you have more teams to make a larger schedule with longer traveling distances then the 1940's and 1950's. The Travel distance of teams in that era was only as far west as St Louis and as far south as Washington DC. Now it is Miami to Boston or Toronto to Seattle to San Diego and places in between. Even with Jet travel that is still a great deal of area to cover. It would be like having a premiership league from Ireland to Berlin and then expanding it geographically to Scotland to Spain to the Ukraine to Moscow and the season is 100 games per team between April and the end of September. gives you an idea of the scale of baseball in America compared with Premiership. It is not to say anything negative about sports in England just two very different beasts. The footprint of English football would be about the area between Chicago Washington and Boston .

Jim jones

[YellowVest]

Add the Florida Marlins to the list of teams moving into a Retractable Roof stadium.

They're slated to move by 2012 into the old Orange Bowl location (the Orange Bowl is now demolished after being severly damaged by a hurricane):

Demolition began in March 2008, and will eventually make way for a new 37,000 seat retractable roof baseball stadium that is scheduled to open as the home of the current Florida Marlins in 2012. The team has agreed to change their name to the Miami Marlins as part of the agreement between the team, the City of Miami, and Miami-Dade County

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Orange_Bowl

[mattperiolat]

The Minnesota Vikings are threatening to pull out of Minneapolis unless they build a Retractable Roof stadium in downtown Minneapolis for them to play in. The State had some financing lined up, something in the order of $ 600 million, but it's not moving forward as far as I know.

The Minnesota Twins move out of the Metrodome in 2010 into a new Baseball specific Stadium. As of next year the Twins will be the only sports tenant in the Metrodome.

With the implosion of the RCA Dome in Indianapolis, the Minneapolis Metrodome and the CarrierDome in Syracuse, NY remain the only other "Teflon Domes" in North America other than BC Place.

What the...?

OK, first things first about the Twins. Twins wanted a new stadium or they were going to leave, period. And trust me, the taxpayers around Minneapolis are going to be paying for Target Field in taxes for quite a while.

Following your logic, how can the Twins move out of the Metrodome at the end of the 09 baseball season and still be the only tenant in '10?

The Vikings have made noises about wanting a new stadium, but given the hike for Target Field and the economy crashing, it's just not happening for a while. Rest assured, the Metrodome will be used for quite a while yet.

Listen, I've been on this boards for just a bit under a year, talked with some good people, talked with some bad people. I know that you have issues with the BC Place and the dome. Heck, I wish things had been thought through better before the games were this close too, but it's water under the bridge. I had to live with a government I disapproved of hosting in Beijing, I suggest you try and do the same for Vancouver.

Seriously, cool your jets. It's getting old.

[YellowVest]

Watching the Vikings - Eagles game right now and listening to the crowd noise in there...

and considering how much a home field advantage the crowd noise is inside the Metrodome, I'd think the Vikings would love playing in there for a long time to come...

[mattperiolat]

Watching the Vikings - Eagles game right now and listening to the crowd noise in there...

and considering how much a home field advantage the crowd noise is inside the Metrodome, I'd think the Vikings would love playing in there for a long time to come...

Um, did I not just say that the Vikings would be staying in the 'Dome for the forseeable or was I talking to myself?

The Vikings are going nowhere fast, especially in this economy. But I'm still struggling to see what the Metrodome has to do with BC Place and the problems you're going on like Job about.

[YellowVest]

The Vikings don't care about the economy. If they can make more money in another city, they'll move there.