Lots of other sports facilities need work, why is this one so special?

Why would they want to remove the berms ?

The reason for removing the berms are so that the field can be expanded to an official Canadian Sized Football Field( potential Canadian Junior Football League) .I’m not sure about the Official CIS size for soccer? The existing field was made as an American Sized Football field.And I would assume they would continue with the Track around the perimeter.

Seems to me the money for Masich Place was funded by the BC Government and perhaps the Feds a number of years ago as part of the BC Summer Games. It was originally called Massey Place stadium, and the renamed after our local Mr. Masich. We of course get to do the maintenance.

So all considered its not a bad deal.

Interesting. Hillside Stadium in Kamloops, the field is surrounded by a 400m 8 lane track just like Masich Place. Hillside is home to both the TRU soccer teams and the Kamloops Broncos junior football team. Masich place claims to have infield dimensions of 68.58X91.44. So is Prince George planning on having a track longer than 400 metres ?

I assume your Masich dimensions are in meters. Canadian Football fields are 150 yards long by 65 yards wide. According to my math it won’t fit inside your measurements.

The Montreal Alouettes of the Canadian Football League play inside of a 400 metre track. Yes the corners of the end zones are trimmed. Very common at Canadian University stadiums. 400 metre tracks are the standard.

So…..why do they want to remove the berms at Masich Place ? Is it to make way for the proposed throwing cage ?

The track at Masich Place Stadium is in very poor shape and is five years past its expected usable life. There is considerable water damage underneath the existing top layer of the track surface, which is lifting in several spots. A consultant’s report, done last July recommended resurfacing of the track itself as well some upgrades to the existing field event runways. By resurfacing it now, the cost will be substantially less than if it is allowed to further deteriorate. If further deterioration occurs, the existing top layer of the track, which was laid in September 2000, and the original layer, which was laid in 1990 for the BC Games, might have to be ground off and further repairs done prior to a new surface being installed. This is a very significant cost.

The field at Masich Place is more than large enough for a regulation CFL field and a FIFA field. Space is not the issue. The track dimensions will not change.

The issue at hand is the quality of the infield as it is currently. Prior to heavy use by football in the autumn, there were never any issues with the infield surface at Masich Place. The nature of football is such that turf fields, no matter how well maintained, take a beating. There has also been discussion that the irrigation system at Masich Place Stadium is broken. It is not. Granted, I am asking you to take my word for it, and many of you will question this, but to my knowledge, the city has not done research into this; however, it has been done by others. The City’s information is largely based on conjecture.

The report to council seeks to replace the existing infield with a synthetic surface, which in and of itself has issues. In order to do this, the report calls for the removal of the throwing event areas from the existing natural turf infield to a location outside of the stadium, and a restructuring of the existing jump areas to include an area suitable for high jump. Based on a quick observation of the initial plan, this will be somewhat problematic and lead to significant congestion in this area.

The berm has been slated for removal so as to open up the venue. This is a mistake. The berm is on the south end of the facility for a reason – wind protection. The removal of this berm and the trees on it will change the nature of the facility and increase the wind at track level. Again this is a mistake.

The proposal essentially seeks to change a multi-sport track and field facility in to a football/soccer venue with a track around it. There are other options and alternatives which the Planning Department either did not consider or did not choose to forward to Council prior to making this request for over $3 million of grant money through the UBCM.

I could go on; however, ultimately, Council will decide what to do. They should; however, be given more information than what is in the report from the Planning Department.

Thank you.

Bill

The city of Prince George planning dept is involved ? This project is doomed then.

Billy69. You seem to on top of this file.

If at all possible you should ensure that this information is given to the Mayor and Council for their edification.

I am sure the Mayor and Council want to do whats best for this facility, however I am also sure they have no desire to waste money, or to do it wrong,.

Email you information to Mayor and Council Prince George.

Palopu writes:

Email you information to Mayor and Council Prince George.

————————————————————————–

Miles ahead on that one. They received a nicely detailed email very early this morning.

Thank you.

Pine view farmer: so they are going to move the bend to make the field bigger and then the track is going to be bigger than 400? That doesn’t make sense

Great. Thanks billy69

BC Place is replacing their perfectly good turf for the upcoming women’s World Cup. They have not decided what they are doing with the old turf yet. Perhaps they could be convinced to donate it for Masich Place!

Confused, why would one not apply for a grant? Don’t get it then figure out what you can afford to do through city taxes. The grant from UBCM does not cost the taxpayers of PG any extra money than they pay now – or am I missing something?

NyteHawwk, BC Place uses BCAuction to dispose of their turf, equipment, etc. as do most other government agencies. Not sure why the Canada Winter Games stuff didn’t go that route but rather to a private sale? Olympics stuff was sold through BCAuction

Infield irrigation is shot
There is a bladder under the turf and when they started pitching tents on the infield they used spikes and punched holes in it.
I was at the user meeting

johnnyb45 writes:

Infield irrigation is shot
There is a bladder under the turf and when they started pitching tents on the infield they used spikes and punched holes in it.
I was at the user meeting

—————————————————————————

I have discussed this very issue with the designer of the infield. There is, indeed a membrane 18 inches below the field surface which is designed to hold water; however, because the substrate is sand, when and if the bladder is punctured, the sand essentially seals the holes.

The irrigation system, itself, contains about 8 miles of perforated piping that move water underneath the field and water it from below. As maintaining the quality of the field requires regular watering, and there have been no sink holes develop in the field since the first perforation of the membrane about twenty years ago, it should be safe to assume that the membrane is not leaking. The city has not, at anytime excavated to see what the condition of the membrane is; however, the designer of the field has. Ergo, the irrigation system is not shot.

Coincidentally, when the field designer was doing a facilities assessment last summer, he was able to discuss the irrigation system with workers from the city and explained to them how it was designed and how it works. It was, by all accounts, enlightening.

Thank you.

Did they hit any of the piping with the the spikes for the tents? Had this happen on a commercial lawn and it developed a soft spot