Investors Group Field | Winnipeg

[viperred88]

http://www.themanitoban.com/news/senate-notes

Senate Notes
7 Oct 2008 | Ashley Gaboury /the manitoban

The University of Manitoba Senate met on Oct. 1, 2008.

Senate approved two degrees to be granted notwithstanding including a Master of Social Work and a Bachelor of Laws.

The report of the senate committee on awards outlined 24 new offers that will be awarded at the October convocation. They also outlined 48 amended offers and the withdrawal of three offers.

During closed session, there was a report given by the senate committee on honorary degrees.

Matters that were forwarded to Senate for information included a letter of implementation from Robert Kerr, vice-president (academic) regarding a Master of Physician Assistant Studies programs. Also included was a letter of intent sent to the Council on Post-Secondary Education regarding a graduate program in pediatric dentistry.

Kerr noted that preliminary numbers had indicated a 1.9 per cent drop in enrollment although the official count will be made as of Nov. 1. He also noted a four per cent increase in graduate enrollment and indicated that U1 enrollment remained stable.

No questions were brought fourth during question period and Senate approved the minutes of the Sept. 3 meeting.

Senate approved the nominations of Curtis Martel (Arts) and Jessica Armah (Science) to the committee on nominations for a one-year term ending on Oct. 14, 2009.

Senate approved and recommended to the Board of Governors for approval, the report of the planning and priorities for the siting of a football stadium within the designated sports and active living precinct submitted by Norman Hunter, chair of the committee.

There were a number of questions and comments put fourth regarding the siting of the football stadium.

Members expressed concerned regarding the placement of the proposed parkade. Hunter said that the site for the proposed parkade had not been determined.

He also said that a subcommittee would determine the new location of the displaced tennis courts and outdoor soccer fields. Hunter also said that the new location determined for the tennis courts and soccer fields would not displace parking.

The comment was put fourth that a traffic analysis should be made to assess the campus’ ability to deal with large amount of traffic on game days. Debbie McCallum, vice-president (administration), said that a subcommittee had already considered the idea and a traffic plan had been developed. McCallum also noted a public forum slated for early November that would include those on campus, students in residence and the greater Winnipeg community.

Members also expressed concern about the amount of noise and light pollution the stadium would bring. McCallum said these issues would be addressed during the November forum. She also noted that the bowl design of the stadium with its partial roof would greatly reduce the amount of noise and light pollution.

With the question of whether the stadium would have a universal accessibility design, McCallum said the design had not progressed that far but that the stadium would be designed to be accessible to all individuals.

Senate approved and recommended to the Board of Governors for approval the report of the senate planning and priorities committee for the siting of the west grid computing building.

Mark Whitmore, dean of science, noted that design of the building left “room for expansion.”

David Barnard, university president, said that the proposed stadium would bring “improved facilities for students” and allow for “strategically different interaction between campus and the community.”

With the approval and recommendation to the Board of Governors for approval of the report of the senate committee on awards and the deferral of the report of senate committee on nominations to the Nov. 5, 2008 meeting, senate was then adjourned.

[viperred88]

Dare to compare our stadium plans to Ottawa

http://www.lansdownelive.ca/index.asp


did I get this right the ottawa 67s hockey rink would be built underneath the football stadium? If thats the case that really defines what the term smart growth is all about.

they say it is central or is just as central as polo park?

I wouldn't mind seeing an aquarium downtown or even as crazy as it sounds an indoor zoo for that matter but that cost serious $$$$$

[JayM]

Originally Posted by viperred88

Dare to compare our stadium plans to Ottawa

http://www.lansdownelive.ca/index.asp


did I get this right the ottawa 67s hockey rink would be built underneath the football stadium? If thats the case that really defines what the term smart growth is all about.

they say it is central or is just as central as polo park?

I wouldn't mind seeing an aquarium downtown or even as crazy as it sounds an indoor zoo for that matter but that cost serious $$$$$

Thanks for the post. I was waiting for something interesting to happen to that site.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by viperred88

Dare to compare our stadium plans to Ottawa

http://www.lansdownelive.ca/index.asp


did I get this right the ottawa 67s hockey rink would be built underneath the football stadium? If thats the case that really defines what the term smart growth is all about.

they say it is central or is just as central as polo park?

I wouldn't mind seeing an aquarium downtown or even as crazy as it sounds an indoor zoo for that matter but that cost serious $$$$$

Wasn't Ottawa's old arena (the Civic Centre) under the grandstand of Lansdowne Park? If so, all they're doing is rebuilding what was already there. It is more central than Polo Park but not by much.

[viperred88]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Wasn't Ottawa's old arena (the Civic Centre) under the grandstand of Lansdowne Park? If so, all they're doing is rebuilding what was already there. It is more central than Polo Park but not by much.

oh yeah I seem to recall the arena sitting underneath the grandstands.
Time will tell if its still cheaper to renovate or build brand new. YOu would think from the bombers assesment it was cheaper to build new so I am not sure why Ottawa thinks otherwise. I thought engineers told them to tear it down

But here is a quote from an FAQ from Ottawa ...
"What is the cost of the stadium?
That has yet to be finalized because there are a lot of unknowns. We're not sure if we are talking about a renovation or a demolition and new construction. The City commissioned an engineering study on the north side stands and until we see the results we're not sure what we're dealing with."

[DowntownWpg]

Any thoughts on the chances of the Conservatives ponying up the cash that David Asper needs from them, post-election, and in this economic time?

I did read the article and some comments around the bottom of the previous page on this thread (however, Katz and his comments re: stadium has no credibility with me - remember when he championed the PD site one day, and was the PD site's biggest critic the next? Source).

My thinking is that the Cons will (now) want to appear to be tight-managers of the public purse (they're going to get hammered in the next parliamentary session for reckless spending and extreme tax cuts which could have been avoided and will now bring certain deficit).

Funding a football stadium does not have any "greater good" value in comparison to items like people's living conditions, social welfare, etc. The argument of amateur sports at the UofM is thin, as the uni seems to be getting by fine with what they have in the Pan-Am Stadium (have they ever had attendance to capacity for football or track & field?). Anyway, such spending would certainly take away their ability to argue in the next election that they are tight managers of the public purse.

Further, would it not open the floodgates even further with other CFL cities and ownership groups? They'll all want the same cash for substantial stadium upgrades or new facilities. This would be too big a problem as it looks like we'll be in a deficit in 2009/10.

I also think that if they have the extra money to kick around, it'll go to items like the arts and culture, in an attempt to appease those groups which the Cons had so offended. Lastly, if they have a choice between Manitoba projects to put money towards in a deficit spending situation, I think that the Human Right Museum stands a better chance than the football stadium. After all, sports is just entertainment. A museum is to educate and enlighten. A greater good by comparison.

Just some thoughts... anyone have any insights here? (other than my obvious political leanings)

[Spocket]

Well I wouldn't call a two percent cut in the GST extreme but otherwise I think you're absolutely right. I can't see the Cons committing any money to anything outside of basic infrastructure requirements unless it's something really special and in the national interest. "Who knows ?" I guess.

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Well I wouldn't call a two percent cut in the GST extreme but otherwise I think you're absolutely right. I can't see the Cons committing any money to anything outside of basic infrastructure requirements unless it's something really special and in the national interest. "Who knows ?" I guess.

Guess it's a matter of interpretation. I would argue that it's extreme, just given the situation. 1% in the GST equals $6-Billion (2% = $12-Billion). The deficit forcast for the 2009/10 fiscal year is estimated at $10-Billion. The deficit could have been avoided with only a 1% cut, and without the $8.8-Billion pork-barrel spending by the Cons leading up to the election.

My post on this page lists the sources I've used for these numbers.

[viperred88]

Days like yesterday bomber fans probably would of wished the stadium was indoors. A retractable rood would of been nice.

[hexrae]

I'd settle for a concourse indoors.

[rrskylar]

In this day and age a new stadium for a lone team to play in 8 times a year is tops on the governments priority list!

[sledhead35]

days like saterday i wish we had offensive/defensive coordinators

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

In this day and age a new stadium for a lone team to play in 8 times a year is tops on the governments priority list!

Heh... and, I assume you're being sarcastic.

You guys may have heard that the Feds will not be funding what was to be the National Portrait Gallery. When I learned about that late last week, for me, it seems obvious that the Feds funding even part of the Bomber stadium will never happen (in the next few years anyway).

I've wrote about the economics already in this thread in the recent while (they can't be seen doing non-essential pork barrel spending in a deficit or near deficit situation, especially something like sports).

But this cancellation of funds to the Portrait Gallery seems telling that there is a nail in the coffin for federal cash for the Bomber stadium, given politics as well. As you know, the Cons lost a good chunk of support due to the cuts to the arts.

Therefore, if they have any hope of being able to politically overcome their arts debacle, they cannot be seen giving millions to a football stadium after they have canceled money for the Portrait Gallery.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...HNY&refer=home

[rrskylar]

^You've hit the nail on the head. Another thing that probably has put another nail in the coffin in terms of funding is the demise of the Asper family fortune at the hands of Izzy's kids. (WOW two nail expressions in one post)

[hexrae]

Agreed, an albeit aging 29,000 seat stadium is still sufficient for Winnipeg (1 game this season where at least an indoor concourse would be nice). Ride out the economic crisis and revisit this proposal at a later date.

[Stephen LaRose]

Given Canwest's meltdown on Bay Street, I would think David has more important things to think about ... like keeping some of the family silverware from the repo men ...

http://ottawawatch.blogspot.com/2008...tch.html#links

http://ottawawatch.blogspot.com/2008...ill.html#links

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by hexrae

Agreed, an albeit aging 29,000 seat stadium is still sufficient for Winnipeg (1 game this season where at least an indoor concourse would be nice). Ride out the economic crisis and revisit this proposal at a later date.

With recent engeneering reports stating the current stadium will only last another 5 to 10 years max .. makes me wonder if the Bombers will be Winnipeg's next franchise to leave because of a lack of a sufficient venue.

I guess if this project doesn't go through we can hope the feds and the Province will line up to flip the whole bill 5 years from now ... HIGHLY DOUBTFUL...

[wags_in_the_peg]

according to Bob Irving on his Sports minute on CJOB this morning, the stadium plans are moving along

[Archiseek]

Originally Posted by hexrae

I'd settle for a concourse indoors.

Yeah, twas chilly in the stands, but at least the toilets were warm.....

From what I hear, plans are still moving for a stadium...
Even in my four years going, the stadium has declined noticeably

[sledhead35]

Originally Posted by newflyer

..makes me wonder if the Bombers will be Winnipeg's next franchise to leave because of a lack of a sufficient venue.

well if high crime and anti investment arent enough, there's something else to add to our list of reputations...