Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Aud
(02-06-2020, 10:44 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(02-06-2020, 09:54 AM)Chris Wrote: Have you learned nothing from your time on this forum? Don't even mention pedestrian bridges downtown.  Tongue
half /s half serious

To be fair, even if it weren't ugly and useless, a pedestrian bridge across Gaukel would be a terrible idea.

Uh, why? Supposing it’s attractive and useful, what remaining problems are there with the idea?

That being said, in this particular case where if I understand correctly the question is how to connect accessible underground parking west/north of Gaukel with the main stadium east/south of Gaukel, it seems pretty obvious to me that the hypothetical stadium structure would continue right under Gaukel and people would just walk across at parking level underground. In this case I imagine the entire stadium having a single underground structure, partly public parking and partly “backstage” areas for the stadium itself.
Reply


(02-06-2020, 10:44 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(02-06-2020, 09:54 AM)Chris Wrote: Have you learned nothing from your time on this forum? Don't even mention pedestrian bridges downtown.  Tongue
half /s half serious

To be fair, even if it weren't ugly and useless, a pedestrian bridge across Gaukel would be a terrible idea.

I suggested it only because of complaints that the accessible parking isn't "on site" if one has to cross the street. I agree it's excessive, one is going to have a lot further to go once they're inside the arena anyways, but I saw lots of comments on Facebook that were outraged at the thought they'd have to cross a street from their accessible parking.

For general parking I have zero sympathy for people complaining about distance, walking a few mins won't kill you. But for accessible parking I think there are some legitimate issues.
Reply
A downtown arena would be a depressing monolith every night it wasn't hosting something. Traffic on game nights would be really annoying since it would be all up in people's business instead of mostly contained at the Aud's current parking lots. I don't know what average use of an arena is but I reckon it's gotta be 3 nights a week without any events for most places. I can't see how having a huge empty block 3 or 4 nights a week would be better than just having a mixed use development on that block.

I think the city missed a chance to expand the Aud more when they decided to do the last one, apparently the Rangers wanted space for 11,500 which would cost $44m at the time. I am not really keen on seeing city money spent to build sports venues but since the Rangers are publicly owned it might make some money back?

It's been a long time since I've been to a ranger's game but I can't see a lot of people taking transit; if a family/group wants to go, parking and gas would have to be more than 26$ if that family were to pay full fare for transit, usually driving to the game is quicker. Anyone with a van or SUV could take a bigger group and split the parking/gas costs with more people.
Reply
Rangers have a (free?) shuttle service that picks up fans from various points throughout the region. No reason why that couldn't continue in a downtown facility.

However, I think the best place for a new arena is at the site of the current one. I know the stadium at the track was unsafe and demolished, but does the actual track still get used? Perhaps the new arena can be built there and serve as a Highway buffer for all the new residential highrises to cover the rest of the property... Smile

Coke
Reply
(02-06-2020, 02:20 PM)clasher Wrote: A downtown arena would be a depressing monolith every night it wasn't hosting something. Traffic on game nights would be really annoying since it would be all up in people's business instead of mostly contained at the Aud's current parking lots. I don't know what average use of an arena is but I reckon it's gotta be 3 nights a week without any events for most places. I can't see how having a huge empty block 3 or 4 nights a week would be better than just having a mixed use development on that block.

I think the city missed a chance to expand the Aud more when they decided to do the last one, apparently the Rangers wanted space for 11,500 which would cost $44m at the time. I am not really keen on seeing city money spent to build sports venues but since the Rangers are publicly owned it might make some money back?

It's been a long time since I've been to a ranger's game but I can't see a lot of people taking transit; if a family/group wants to go, parking and gas would have to be more than 26$ if that family were to pay full fare for transit, usually driving to the game is quicker. Anyone with a van or SUV could take a bigger group and split the parking/gas costs with more people.
I believe the newer downtown arenas tend to be "mixed use" in a sense as they incorporated commercial units facing the street i.e restaurants. Which would obviously be busier on game/event night but would also be open on other night to keep the street vibrant when nothing is on at the arena. Traffic, Traffic, Traffic always seems to be an issue with people in this region, yet I haven't noticed much traffic since I moved here. So at most it will take 15-mins to drive home from downtown? most concerts/ games occur in the evening or mid-day on weekends when traffic is relatively light in this region. Another point is that if people are using 4 different parking garages around the downtown when they go to a game so most of the traffic will be spread out. I am sure they will do traffic studies to showcase this. 

Expanding the seating of the current location in a small part of the issue with the current arena. Even if the had, there would still be issues with the lack of fan experience when going to a game, insufficient concourse to accommodate the fans, lack of modern corporate boxes, probably still inadequate to host major performances do to layout issues. So we would have spent $44 million and received nothing but a 2,000 more seats.

I thought transit users already get a discount if they are attending a game? Sounds like an excuse from people that never and will never take transit "No one would take take transit if they can afford to drive." What about families that live on the lrt line? Families who's kids already have a transit pass? Families who's parents want a couple drinks? I think people would be surprised at how many people would take transit to the game if it was downtown.
Reply
(02-06-2020, 04:32 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: Rangers have a (free?) shuttle service that picks up fans from various points throughout the region.  No reason why that couldn't continue in a downtown facility.

However, I think the best place for a new arena is at the site of the current one.  I know the stadium at the track was unsafe and demolished, but does the actual track still get used?  Perhaps the new arena can be built there and serve as a Highway buffer for all the new residential highrises to cover the rest of the property... Smile

Coke

The track facilities are gone. Just a soccer field and a couple bleachers now.

I think a page or two ago you could see the track is gone and the long jump pits are weeds pits from a satellite image that was posted.
Reply
(02-06-2020, 02:20 PM)clasher Wrote: A downtown arena would be a depressing monolith every night it wasn't hosting something. Traffic on game nights would be really annoying since it would be all up in people's business instead of mostly contained at the Aud's current parking lots. I don't know what average use of an arena is but I reckon it's gotta be 3 nights a week without any events for most places. I can't see how having a huge empty block 3 or 4 nights a week would be better than just having a mixed use development on that block.

I think the city missed a chance to expand the Aud more when they decided to do the last one, apparently the Rangers wanted space for 11,500 which would cost $44m at the time. I am not really keen on seeing city money spent to build sports venues but since the Rangers are publicly owned it might make some money back?

It's been a long time since I've been to a ranger's game but I can't see a lot of people taking transit; if a family/group wants to go, parking and gas would have to be more than 26$ if that family were to pay full fare for transit, usually driving to the game is quicker. Anyone with a van or SUV could take a bigger group and split the parking/gas costs with more people.

All of your points are valid. The Ranger DID want a larger expansion originally, at $44M or so, but they wanted 10,000. This is what they felt at the time was the demand. The city balked at this, so they went with the $9.7M expansion for 1,000 additional seats (this was on top of the other minor expansion of 400 seats. What the Rangers want now is totally different, they want 7,500 - 8,000 max. No more. 7,500 would only be a few more seats than what we have now. Granted, seats would be much better and the facility much improved.

For the Rangers, the sweet spot seems to be 7,500 -- this is where on most game days you'll get pretty close to max capacity, which is what you want. You build to large of an arena, say 10,000, and you get 6,500 to a game, it's going to look fairly empty. So the fan experience isn't great, and you start to lose fan base.

Hamilton knows all to well about this a First Ontario Place. They can't get successful hockey in their arena. Parking is the biggest issue, since there is little onsite parking. It's expensive and the walk is simply too much for many. They're averaging 3,500 per game in a place that can hold 5x that. First Ontario also misses a lot of shows, except for some major artists that are looking to avoid Toronto.

Transit, if this was a family option, is $8.50 for an all-day family pass. Cheaper than parking for sure. But you need to plan at least 60 minutes before game time and another 60 minutes at least to get back home.

To be honest, though, I think if the city is serious about a new arena, they need to look at putting at the back of the Twin Pads at The Aud Complex. Keep the football/soccer field (perhaps upgrade) and upgrade Panther Park. Lose the dog park, skateboard park (or put it somewhere else) and lose the leaf drop off. This will be additional parking. They *could* buy the 3 houses that are between the expressway and the entrance. The old aud could be converted to a parking garage (paid) and perhaps some retail (restaurants). The complex itself is huge, and not many people realize just how gigantic the property is.

If anything was possible and money was no object, the upgrade would include a good football stadium, capable of hosting CFL, and a decent baseball park capable of hosting MiLB. The arena itself would be somehow convertible -- that is, it could seat 8,000 or so for OHL hockey, but increase to 12,000 or so, plus floor seating, for concerts and such.
Reply


(02-07-2020, 02:03 AM)jeffster Wrote:
(02-06-2020, 02:20 PM)clasher Wrote: A downtown arena would be a depressing monolith every night it wasn't hosting something. Traffic on game nights would be really annoying since it would be all up in people's business instead of mostly contained at the Aud's current parking lots. I don't know what average use of an arena is but I reckon it's gotta be 3 nights a week without any events for most places. I can't see how having a huge empty block 3 or 4 nights a week would be better than just having a mixed use development on that block.

I think the city missed a chance to expand the Aud more when they decided to do the last one, apparently the Rangers wanted space for 11,500 which would cost $44m at the time. I am not really keen on seeing city money spent to build sports venues but since the Rangers are publicly owned it might make some money back?

It's been a long time since I've been to a ranger's game but I can't see a lot of people taking transit; if a family/group wants to go, parking and gas would have to be more than 26$ if that family were to pay full fare for transit, usually driving to the game is quicker. Anyone with a van or SUV could take a bigger group and split the parking/gas costs with more people.

All of your points are valid. The Ranger DID want a larger expansion originally, at $44M or so, but they wanted 10,000. This is what they felt at the time was the demand. The city balked at this, so they went with the $9.7M expansion for 1,000 additional seats (this was on top of the other minor expansion of 400 seats.  What the Rangers want now is totally different, they want 7,500 - 8,000 max. No more. 7,500 would only be a few more seats than what we have now. Granted, seats would be much better and the facility much improved.

For the Rangers, the sweet spot seems to be 7,500 -- this is where on most game days you'll get pretty close to max capacity, which is what you want. You build to large of an arena, say 10,000, and you get 6,500 to a game, it's going to look fairly empty. So the fan experience isn't great, and you start to lose fan base.

Hamilton knows all to well about this a First Ontario Place. They can't get successful hockey in their arena. Parking is the biggest issue, since there is little onsite parking. It's expensive and the walk is simply too much for many. They're averaging 3,500 per game in a place that can hold 5x that. First Ontario also misses a lot of shows, except for some major artists that are looking to avoid Toronto.

Transit, if this was a family option, is $8.50 for an all-day family pass. Cheaper than parking for sure. But you need to plan at least 60 minutes before game time and another 60 minutes at least to get back home.

To be honest, though, I think if the city is serious about a new arena, they need to look at putting at the back of the Twin Pads at The Aud Complex. Keep the football/soccer field (perhaps upgrade) and upgrade Panther Park. Lose the dog park, skateboard park (or put it somewhere else) and lose the leaf drop off. This will be additional parking. They *could* buy the 3 houses that are between the expressway and the entrance. The old aud could be converted to a parking garage (paid) and perhaps some retail (restaurants). The complex itself is huge, and not many people realize just how gigantic the property is.

If anything was possible and money was no object, the upgrade would include a good football stadium, capable of hosting CFL, and a decent baseball park capable of hosting MiLB. The arena itself would be somehow convertible -- that is, it could seat 8,000 or so for OHL hockey, but increase to 12,000 or so, plus floor seating, for concerts and such.

There would also be room to put it in the parking lots to the "east" of the Pads, fronting on Ottawa St, no?
Reply
(02-07-2020, 02:03 AM)jeffster Wrote: If anything was possible and money was no object, the upgrade would include a good football stadium, capable of hosting CFL, and a decent baseball park capable of hosting MiLB. The arena itself would be somehow convertible -- that is, it could seat 8,000 or so for OHL hockey, but increase to 12,000 or so, plus floor seating, for concerts and such.
This would be my ideal dream option. Convert the aud land completely to a Sports and entertainment district. Move the arena to face Ottawa to give that street some life, Build a 18,000-22,000 person CFL/CPL stadium. and rebuild the ballpark to 2500-3000 all with great amenities and fan experiences.  Build a parking garage and sell the rest of the land to a developer for mixed use towers. fit a new twin pad arena somewhere in there. Obviously never going to happen, but would love to see the region have the facilities to host the CFL/ CPL.
Reply
(02-07-2020, 09:47 AM)panamaniac Wrote: There would also be room to put it in the parking lots to the "east" of the Pads, fronting on Ottawa St, no?

They could, they could refurbish Jack Couch Park, get rid of the leaf dump and move the baseball park into where the large sign and leaf dump are, and it could face Ottawa. The main arena then could be built in front of Kiwanis, facing Ottawa.

With the old arena, and I just got the idea, but aside from putting some parking in it, along with retail (restaurants) we could but some sort of accelerator in there too, but sports related technology mostly. We could have a world class sports medicine and technology centre. It is large enough to do this.
Reply
A trivia question - Does anyone know what became of the big portrait of a young Queen Elizabeth that used to hang in the Aud?
Reply
Thrown in the trash, one would hope.
Reply
This should probably go somewhere else, but thought it would be relevant if the region is every going to plan a new arena to replace the aging Aud. Saskatoon is moving forward with a planned $220 million 15,500 seat arena in downtown. They are also including a renovated theatre and new convention centre.

https://pub-saskatoon.escribemeetings.co...tId=204697

Unfortunately, I think something of this scale is a bit ambitious for the Region (Kitchener), but a slightly smaller version of this could transform the regions ability to attract concerts and events. Possibly a 12,000 seat arena. Maybe in the Ottawa & Charles neighbourhood to help spur development as part of the City of Kitchener's PARTS initiative.
Reply


If Saskatoon can do it with a population of 260,000, what's stopping the Region (or even one of the Cities) from doing it? (oh yeah, there are hundreds of posts here with thoughts on this.... :-) )
Reply
[Image: new-auditorium.png]

There's space downtown for a decent-sized arena.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links