Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[Hackslack]

I assume people’s opinion would be that Edmonton built theirs too big, seeing as the capacity is only 600 less than what Calgary is building, in which people are saying 19,100 is too big.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I assume people’s opinion would be that Edmonton built theirs too big, seeing as the capacity is only 600 less than what Calgary is building, in which people are saying 19,100 is too big.

Ah, I see now.

Edmonton's arena is massive... of the rinks I've been to it feels like only Bell Centre can compare in terms of size. But the large number of premium seating areas keeps the number of seats down... with a more old fashioned, early 90s type seating configuration it would have over 20,000 seats easy.

But that said, I don't think anyone would say they built their rink too big. They have had some empty seats but I think that has more to do with exorbitant pricing than lack of demand. I think some Canadian NHL teams have started to reach the price ceiling as some of the seats start to go unsold.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by youngregina

Seems about right. I know stadiums aren’t necessarily built on a seats per capita basis, but it appears about right when comparing Edmonton’s seats to their population, and Calgary’s to its.

By this line of thinking Scotiabank Arena would be a 40K seater.

Originally Posted by esquire

To go back to a point JHikka made earlier, arena seat counts don't tell you quite as much these days as they once did.

A lot of people in this thread apparently don't know how supply and demand works in relation to maximizing potential revenues from customers. Somebody will have to explain to me why Calgary is building an arena 5% larger for the Flames than what San Francisco got for the Warriors. The trend has not been for bigger venues.

Originally Posted by esquire

I think some Canadian NHL teams have started to reach the price ceiling as some of the seats start to go unsold.

Yes, Canadian NHL teams are in a crunch between a rising USD cap and having to match seats in CAD to cover. To a certain extent Canadian teams can do well but if teams like Dallas, Tampa, and Vegas start doing well the Canadian teams hit a ceiling of revenue capture earlier compared to their southern neighbours, due to revenue earned in USD as well as those cities having larger bases of potential customers and corporate partners.

[wave46]

I think the optimal size would have been 18,501.

Exactly one more than Edmonton.

That way, each city can spend the next few decades playing one-upmanship. Literally. One seat at a time.

[J.OT13]

The three community rinks at Centre Slush Puppie are set to open on Friday, February 5th. The 4,000 seat arena, the future home of the Olympiques de Gatineau, is still scheduled to open in September.



https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle...taire-gatineau

[wave46]

Originally Posted by JHikka

A lot of people in this thread apparently don't know how supply and demand works in relation to maximizing potential revenues from customers. Somebody will have to explain to me why Calgary is building an arena 5% larger for the Flames than what San Francisco got for the Warriors. The trend has not been for bigger venues.


Yes, Canadian NHL teams are in a crunch between a rising USD cap and having to match seats in CAD to cover. To a certain extent Canadian teams can do well but if teams like Dallas, Tampa, and Vegas start doing well the Canadian teams hit a ceiling of revenue capture earlier compared to their southern neighbours, due to revenue earned in USD as well as those cities having larger bases of potential customers and corporate partners.

San Fran has a little more competition for the sports dollar than Calgary.

I don't think Calgary is terribly off the mark, though. If we are squabbling over 600 seats, it mostly shows how eager we are to find something, anything to disagree about.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The three community rinks at Centre Slush Puppie are set to open on Friday, February 5th. The 4,000 seat arena, the future home of the Olympiques de Gatineau, is still scheduled to open in September.



https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle...taire-gatineau

I went by there yesterday and that image isn't a true photo. The signage on those façades (at least not now) is not nearly as garish as that. This is the north side at the corner of Boulevard de la Gappe and Boulevard de la Cité. Where the main entrance to the large arena will be.

But along Boulevard Maloney (QC-148) on the south side, which is a four-lane highway suburban boulevard, there is huge (I might say garish) CENTRE SLUSH PUPPIE lettering.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

By this line of thinking Scotiabank Arena would be a 40K seater.


A lot of people in this thread apparently don't know how supply and demand works in relation to maximizing potential revenues from customers. Somebody will have to explain to me why Calgary is building an arena 5% larger for the Flames than what San Francisco got for the Warriors. The trend has not been for bigger venues.


Yes, Canadian NHL teams are in a crunch between a rising USD cap and having to match seats in CAD to cover. To a certain extent Canadian teams can do well but if teams like Dallas, Tampa, and Vegas start doing well the Canadian teams hit a ceiling of revenue capture earlier compared to their southern neighbours, due to revenue earned in USD as well as those cities having larger bases of potential customers and corporate partners.

If Edmonton has proven to be successful with 600 seats less than what Calgary is proposing, I would expect Calgary to be successful as well. Edmonton even increased capacity by 1,400 seats moving from Northlands, likely due to demand.

Your rebuttal to the logic is based on per capita and that, based on that logic, Toronto should be 40k, is unrealistic, because 40k is simply just unreasonable for any hockey experience. Though, I would certainly argue that Toronto’s Scotiabank arena is under developed for that market, at 18,800.

Also, I’m sure almost everyone knows supply and demand. Calgary has had >96% capacity over the last number of years most in an (extremely) outdated arena, which would lead one to suspect the demand will be even higher for a smaller capacity, high end arena, with more luxury options.

Why is Calgary building an arena 5% larger? Likely because GS doesn’t sell out much. According to the website below, from 2000-2015, they were getting only 90% capacity. If they are selling out now, it doesn’t mean they should just build a $500 million arena, cause at the time it was built they built it off of likely demand at that time... my theory anyway.

https://syndication.bleacherreport.c...years.amp.html

Edmonton is proving to be successful, with a state of the art arena, with a capacity of 18,500... why would they have a bigger arena than GS Warriors?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Your rebuttal to the logic is based on per capita and that, based on that logic, Toronto should be 40k, is unrealistic, because 40k is simply just unreasonable for any hockey experience.

You understand the logic of not tying arena capacity to CMA population, right? That's the point I was making.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Though, I would certainly argue that Toronto’s Scotiabank arena is under developed for that market, at 18,800.

This is simply judging an arena based on capacity without looking deeper at amenities and functionality.

Here's the suite breakdown between the 'underdeveloped' ACC and the new arena in Edmonton:

ACC Toronto: 65 Executive Suites, 32 Theatre Suites, 16 Loge Suites
Rogers Edmonton: 56 suites; and 24 mini-suites

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...er-nhl-arenas/

Saddledome has 72 luxury suites. Northlands had 66.

A lot of arena revenue comes from these suites (much more than seats, anyway). If an arena lowers its general capacity it can increase the number of suites and boxes it has, thereby raising its revenue ceiling.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Calgary has had >96% capacity over the last number of years most in an (extremely) outdated arena, which would lead one to suspect the demand will be even higher for a smaller capacity, high end arena, with more luxury options.

They could sell out all of their games with an even smaller arena and attain those sell outs at higher average prices.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Edmonton is proving to be successful, with a state of the art arena, with a capacity of 18,500... why would they have a bigger arena than GS Warriors?

It's a good question to ask because they'll be facing the same demand issues that have been plaguing Calgary and Winnipeg once the shine of the new arena wears off. If anything, the new arena in Edmonton shows that the trend for new build is declining if you compare it to arenas that opened in the 1990s (Bell Centre and United Center are both 20K+ for hockey). Rogers Centre further plays into the narrative that arena capacities for new builds are declining, even if that build was larger than their previous build. It's about the general trend line of facilities as a whole, and Calgary's at 19,100 is simply too large.

Recent arena builds for NHL teams:
2007 New Jersey -> Meadowlands (19,040) -> Prudential (17,625 (now 16,514))
2010 Pittsburgh -> Civic (16,940) -> PPG (18,387)
2015 Quebec -> Videotron (18,259)
2016 Vegas -> T-Mobile (17,500)
2016 Edmonton -> Northlands (17,100) -> Rogers (18,347)
2017 Detroit -> Joe Louis (20,027) -> Little Caesars (19,515)
2021 Islanders -> Nassau (13,917) -> UBS (17,113)
2021 Seattle -> Climate Pledge (17,100)
2024 Calgary -> Saddledome (19,289) -> CEC (19,100)

And NBA:
2012 Brooklyn -> Prudential (18,711) -> Barclays (17,732)
2016 Sacramento -> Sleep Train (17,317) -> Golden1 (17,608)
2018 Milwaukee -> Bradley (18,717) -> Fiserv (17,341)
2019 Golden State -> Oracle (19,596) -> Chase (18,064)

The only team to build a bigger arena than Calgary is planning to in the last 15 years was Detroit, and they were having attendance issues in their second year at Little Caesars.

These are just the raw attendances and don't include the amount of premium suites and loges but you get the idea. Calgary's new arena being 10% larger than the new builds in Queens and Seattle signifies that it's probably going to be too large within a few years of opening, similar to how IGF is slightly too large for the Winnipeg market today. If you have a right-sized arena/stadium for your market it means you're selling out every single seat but one at the highest price point you can before deflating prices. The problem with Calgary coming in at 19,000 is that it puts them in a crunch where they need to fill those seats at a lower price point than they would have had to at 18,500 or 18,000. Cutting out a thousand or so seats also gives more room for luxury-priced suites.

As esquire pointed out, and has been repeated quite a few times, the last rows are always the most expensive to build and the worst for revenue generation. Calgary could cut 1,000 out of the new rink and have a much easier time filling the place at a higher price point moving forward. It puts less pressure on the organization in 5-10 years after opening for consistent sellouts, and definitely makes revenue generation during rebuild years easier. I've sat in the last row of the nosebleeds of the Bell Centre and those seats are practically worthless for a view - which was a good thing because they were only like $25/each.

tl;dr the new Calgary arena capacity should be 18,000. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

[Coldrsx]

We did some quick math for Edmonton a couple of years ago:

Coliseum total (seat) revenue = x

Rogers Place total (seat) revenue = ~3-4 x

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by wave46

I think the optimal size would have been 18,501.

Exactly one more than Edmonton.

That way, each city can spend the next few decades playing one-upmanship. Literally. One seat at a time.

Lolz.

Kinda like how Stantec is 3m taller than Brookfield

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by wave46

San Fran has a little more competition for the sports dollar than Calgary.

I don't think Calgary is terribly off the mark, though. If we are squabbling over 600 seats, it mostly shows how eager we are to find something, anything to disagree about.

Exactly. Can't help but shake my head... anything I post just needs 15 contrarians to bitch about it endlessly.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Your rebuttal to the logic is based on per capita and that, based on that logic, Toronto should be 40k, is unrealistic, because 40k is simply just unreasonable for any hockey experience. Though, I would certainly argue that Toronto’s Scotiabank arena is under developed for that market, at 18,800.

Scotiabank also wasn't a Leafs design, so it's hard to know how big MLSE would have built it had they been in on it from the start.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Exactly. Can't help but shake my head... anything I post just needs 15 contrarians to bitch about it endlessly.

Lol... seriously, like, being told “matter of factually” Calgary got it wrong by 1000 to 600 seats, is ridiculous.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Scotiabank also wasn't a Leafs design, so it's hard to know how big MLSE would have built it had they been in on it from the start.

Right... That’s a very good point that I completely forgot about

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Lolz.

Kinda like how Stantec is 3m taller than Brookfield

Lol! Stantec is a magnificent building

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Scotiabank also wasn't a Leafs design, so it's hard to know how big MLSE would have built it had they been in on it from the start.

You're right - it was designed for even higher capacity Raptors games, which further cements my point about how arena capacities have been declining in recent years as designs focus more on lower capacities and higher luxury suite counts.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Lol... seriously, like, being told “matter of factually” Calgary got it wrong by 1000 to 600 seats, is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by chadilaccc

Exactly. Can't help but shake my head... anything I post just needs 15 contrarians to bitch about it endlessly.

So you come here to....not discuss things?

[Chadillaccc]

This isn't a discussion, it's just utter nonsense. An announcement on the size of the arena, a rant about arena sizes and false statements, not taking into account the unusually high attendance rate of flames games and higher than usual number of events at the Saddledome (as well as the currently-under-demolition Stampede Corral) which will all be transferred over to the new arena. It's not a discussion, just a bitch fest with you not listening to the in-situ knowledge and facts being presented. Maintaining your same position and not adapting to the information provided is not a discussion.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

This isn't a discussion, it's just utter nonsense.

What's the point of bringing the Calgary arena news up here if there's no willingness to discuss it? An item faces the slightest breeze of questioning and the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. I'll remember to only say nice, positive things in the future and accept any and all recommendations handed down to use by the designers and investors no questions asked.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

and false statements,

What about my post was false?

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

not taking into account the unusually high attendance rate of flames games and higher than usual number of events at the Saddledome

Can you give a source saying that the Saddledome has a higher than usual number of events on a yearly basis? I was under the impression the arena lost out on some events because of its low ceiling.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

It's not a discussion, just a bitch fest with you not listening to the in-situ knowledge and facts being presented. Maintaining your same position and not adapting to the information provided is not a discussion.

It's a shame that this can't be discussed in a reasonable manner. I provided my opinion and i'm met with utter disdain.

[Denscity]

I've heard that about the lower ceiling. And Edmonton benefitted IIRC?