Looking at the logistics of the proposed new stadium.

Projected cost      $278,000,000

Seats                     33.000

Comes out to a little less than $10,000 per seat according to my calculations.

Also, it seems to me that only about 300,000 people or about 1/3 of Saskatchewan's population are within a reasonable driving distance for it to be practical for them to use the new facility. So it seems to me that my share of the new facility comes out to about $1,000.  This, it seems to me is a relatively small figure in proportion to all the other recreational facilities available for my use. 

I am not opposed to construction of the proposed new stadium because modern stadiums seem to have become a necessary part of our infrastructure. But I do not want to see the cost of the new stadium be at the expense of other the smaller scale recreational infrastructure which I am presently using.

It's often a tough call, but at least Regina has a major tenant for their stadium. Sometimes, these projects seem to be more of an "if you build it, they will come" thing (Copp's Coliseum in Hamilton, which was built to 1980s NHL specs but never got an NHL team, comes to mind). If you have the major tenant and a proper deal in place for use and management of the stadium, it can actually generate revenue to help fund the smaller rec projects. Alas, that doesn't always happen when politicians, bureaucrats, and developers are left to their own devices so citizens do need to keep on top of these projects and make sure council hears about it if they think a project is going off the rails.

Mendalla

There is another issue too. It is the issue of "vibrancy".  The proponents of such projects will maintain (sooner or later) that the city can't be "vibrant" without a "world class" stadium and without such vibrancy it will remain unattractive to corporations looking to locate operations where their upwardly mobile and "vibrant" workforce will be happy.

Whether such "vibrancy" is ever an actual issue corporations care about is another matter.  Certainly when they are threatening to pull out their existing operations from already "vibrant" communities to relocate them to greenfield sites in rural (or foreign) locales populated by unsophisticated rubes prepared to work for minimum wage, "vibrancy" is never on the table as a compensating factor.

Interestly,qwerty, that is one of the pitches that they are using.

We here in London have a decent stadium (TD Waterhouse) and a great arena (currently the John Labatt Centre but as part of renewing their naming rights, Labatt wants to change it to the Budweiser Center) and they certainly have done their bit for making the community "vibrant", esp. the JLC which pulls in not only junior hockey (the Knights are arguably one of the best Junior A franchises in the country) and the odd NHL exhibition game but major concert tours, ice shows, broadway touring shows, and so on. That doesn't change the fact that London as a city is getting screwed right and left by both corporations and governments. Yes, having a good facility for sports/entertainment/recreation can contribute to a community being "vibrant" but I'm sure we can find examples of communities being vibrant without one and communities that have one that are struggling.

Mendalla

To that, I would add that IMHO, the various summer festivals that run here in London are doing more for vibrancy in our community than the JLC ever has. Most of them are outdoors in Victoria Park, a large downtown greenspace. Sunfest (which also acts as a local concert promoter to bring acts into other venues in their off-season), Home County Folk Festival, Bluesfest, Ribfest, and even the rather commercial Rocks the Park rock festival coming up in Harris Park (featuring the Steve Miller Band and Boston this year) all combine entertainment with a festive atmosphere that keeps London partying all summer. Well, until the 11pm noise by-law kicks in.

Mendalla

stadiums are the new racket for the rich to tap the taxpayer. Remember, it h as not only to be paid for but to be maintained - so the final cost is much higher than the price. It also requires lots of government favours and other handouts. that's what, when George Bush I was president, a business (football) consortium,  put George Bush II in charge of the project - though his only business experience to that point was a year or two running a company into bankruptcy.

Here in Moncton, the banner is waving for a new "events" centre at 100 mill. Essentially, it is for the owner of the hockey tearm - a billionaire who doesn't want to pay for it.

The purpose of the Colosseum was to keep people entertained and trivial. That hasn't changed.

I can't get excited about stadiums and arenas for team sports.  Neighborhood swimming pools, skating rinks and tracks for individual sports sound like a better use of tax money to me. 

I wonder what % of that city's population can afford to buy a ticket to watch a game.  The people who live outside the city would also have to find cash for travel expenses if they wanted to go and Saskatchewan is a big province.  Does Regina already have a good venue for live theatre?  Musical performances like orchestras?  Affordable activities for children and teens to enjoy during school holidays? 

If all the neighborhoods have everything they need for a vibrant life maybe extra affordable housing or services for the citizens who find it harder than average to find employment and feed their children,

True, but keep in mind that Mosaic Stadium is 80 years old.  I wouldn't want to foot her maintenance bills

Kay and Naman, about the distance people will travel to watch the Roughriders; watch a Rider game on TSN that is played on the road.  Everywhere is within reasonable traveling distance.

Kay, you don't have to watch a game to make use of a stadium.  I've played ultimate at one before.  What's the difference between a track that athletes compete on and then others use it at other times and a stadium where athletes use it for a team sport and then others use it at other times?

Some stadiums probably pump too much money into them for non-needed expensive items.  A stadium doesn't have to be super expensive.

The stadium - the costly part is all those seats and the structure they require is for a small minority. At best, there are few stadia anywhere the world, no matter how big, that will accomodate more than a tiny fraction of the population. That's a lot of taxpayers' money for so few people.And there are better ways it could be spent.

"So for about three centuries, the middle and merchant classes were doing really well. Towns that had been in shambles since the fall of the Roman Empire and had lived under strict feudalism were finally coming into their own. This all hinged on the use of local currencies — grain receipts — through which people transacted. They were what we would now call “demurrage” currencies that were earned into existence. Towns ended up creating more value than they knew what to do with. They started investing in their infrastructure and their windmills and their water wheels; and also in their future in the form of cathedrals and other tourist attractions.

PN: They didn’t get money from Rome to fund their cathedrals?

DR: They did not. The Vatican and central Rome did not build the cathedrals. The funds came from local currency, which was very different than money as we use it now. It was based on grain, which lost value over time. The grain would slowly rot or get eaten by rats or cost money to store, so the money needed to be spent as quickly as possible before it became devalued. And when people spend and spend and spend a lot of money, you end up with an economy that grows very quickly.

Now unlike a capitalist economy where money is hoarded, with local currency, money is moving. The same dollar can end up being the salary for three people rather than just one. There was so much money circulating that they had to figure out what to do with it, how to reinvest it. Saving money was not an option, you couldn’t just stick it in the bank and have it grow because it would not grow there, it would shrink. So they paid the workers really well and they shortened the work week to four and in some cases three days per week. And they invested in the future by way of infrastructure — they started to build cathedrals. They couldn’t build them all at once, but they took the long view — with three generations of investment they could build an entire cathedral, and their great-grandchildren could live in a rich town! That’s how the great cathedrals were built, like Chartres. Some historians actually term the late Middle Ages “The Age of Cathedrals.”

They were the best-fed people in the history of Europe; women in England were taller than they are today, and men were taller than they have been at any point in time until the 1970s or 80s (with the recent growth spurt largely the result of hormones in the food supply). Life expectancy of course was still lower; they lacked modern medicine, but people were actually healthier and stronger and better back then, in ways that we don’t admit.

That was right before the corporation and the original chartered monopolies were created, before central currency was created and local currencies were outlawed. When everything gets moved into the center, things began to change."

--Douglas Rushkoff from Here

I wouldn't walk down the block to pay to watch a team sport (unless a family member was playing!).  Using a stadium for other things doesn't benefit those who live outside the city. 

To me buildings like this proposed arena sound a bit like cathedrals dedicated to professional sport.  I would prefer to see taxpayers money spent in ways that provide benefits to the general population - including those with limited income and/or health challenges.

I live a good eight hour drive away from Regina, so I, too, won't be in the new stadium very often, if at all.  But I say "good for you Regina!"  I have been in Mosaic Stadium, and at 80 years old, it's time to replace it.

Yes, Graeme, it will only seat a small fraction of the Sask population.  However the football team it accomodates appeals to much larger swath.

I would rather have seen the dome they were originally talking about, located downtown.  But, hey, you gotta live within your means.  Right?

Here we go.

Regina;s fans come to games fom one part of the province to the other, That;s why they are called Saskatchewan and not Regina Roughriders. They come in the rin, the sleet, the snow and the hail. The province is green  and the first words kids learn is Go Riders.

The football club brings  a lot of revenue to the city; hotels, restaurants and sell the most Rider paraphenalia at their stores across the province then any other team in Canada.

The Roughriders give back to the Province by visiting schools etc.

Mosaic Stadium, as Alta says , is old and is situated in the heart of the city

The downside is

 can Regina sustain a new stadium? Part of the vision is  that the new stadium would be used year round for concerts, and all other kinds of venues.But then it would need a roof.

Would the Riders staaaaay in Regina if they did have a new Stadium to play in. I am sure they would but this has been said.

The original plan was for CPR to sell the parcel of land downtown near the stadium. It was something that was going to include low cost housing, but CPR backed out but the folk here that dont want the new stadium think the money  should be used for housing, ( My personal opinion is that the private, provincial and city and the Riders have ear marked this money :stadium" money and will not use it for housing This is a different pot, ) 

Very controversial. At this point it is a go.

THESE ARE JUST SOME OF MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS

There are all kinds of projects that can bring money to a city. The trick is to find one that brings in some spending that stays in the city - and has a broader use.

This is not a world in which finding entertainment is difficult. It the stadium is such a profitable venture, then let private investors build it. And, if it were profitable, private investors would not let government build it.

A city should no more be buiding a commercial stadium than it should be building a commercial movie theatre.

As to it being for ALL Saskatchewan, it will probably be for ALL Saskatchewan to pay taxes for. But how much of that province has the money to travel to REgina, stay overnight in hotels and order meals to see a football game?

As well, there are surprisingly large numbers of people in all cities who have no wish to see a football game. That's why pro teams are always looking for suckers to build stadia for them. that's why the minority that goes to the games is encouraged to believe they have a right to a stadium funded by everybody.

As for the business it brings to Regina, how much of that money stays in Regina? Most of the hotels and many of the restaurants belong to chains -with only their lower paying jobs in Regina.

Ya just gotta love a town that is named after a body part...

Thanks Kay for your post. Right now I am focusing on the need for a new stadium. I investigated purchasing a ticket online for the next Rider home game. Pretty much everything involved is new to me. I found that I can attend some of the Rider practices at no cost and I am planning to attend the next practice. It will only require a short ride on my bicycle from here at First Baptist Place to Mosaic Stadium. From there I will start thinking about buying a game ticket.

On the other hand, Kay, I am more concerned about maintaining the other recreational infrastructure Regina already has and my concerns are pretty much the same as yours.

Also, thanks to the other posters in this thread. You all seem to be addressing issues to be considered.

Yes Regina could do with a new stadium, but not only do the Riders use it. highschools do, there coudl be marching band(drum corps) competitions, shows or events other than football ( is there other stuff?). Actually, having a place for youth to swim,run,play soccer baseball i smor eimportant than a stadium. But if they do not build a new one now, when/ The longer one waits teh more expensive it gets.

this is not infrastructure, but a way for city hall toshow the city is growing an d"vibrant". AS in ohhhh looook a new building!!!!!

Build it and soon we all will be ooohhhing along.

I am attempting to arrange to attend a football game in Mosaic Stadium in order for me to ascertain the problems that could be correctected by tearing it down and building a new stadium. However it appears to me that most of the building is of modern construction.  It seems to me that there is quite a bit of Regina infrastructure far more outmoded than the stadium.

Seems to me that the biggest problem with the old stadium is that it is  not adaptable to having a dome placed on top of it.

Go to a game. Pee in an eaves trough with 20 strangers.
You'll see a benefit to building new.
Parts of the existing grand stand date back to 1936