I'm not sure why those seating diagrams all of the sudden gets some people more warm to the project. It gives a little bit more of an outlook on the configuration, but that's it. We could have assumed how it would look already. It's not detailed renderings of how it would actually look like on the field/rink, and in the concourse. I thought the biggest issue was with the location and feasibility? (Public use with event use at same time and such) That hasn't changed with those diagrams.
I'm not that warm to the fieldhouse/CFL stadium combo since I think it would be the less of both worlds, but the configuration does indicate that given more detailed design, perhaps it won't compromise the fieldhouse component as much, and won't feel cheap for CFL games.
My belief though is that the fieldhouse has to serve amature athletics and the public first, before professional teams. So I don't want it to be combined with the arena in downtown at all, and think it should be in foothills athletic park. It's the best spot for the city itself, and the university who would be primary tenants. The fieldhouse is budgeted for 200M, and CSEC wants to build it with CFL configuration for the same price. Something is gonna have to give for that to be the case. The question that needs to be asked is how much value do we get out of paying the assumed extra cost to build a combined fieldhouse/stadium, compared to building the two facilities separately.
|