PDA

View Full Version : New Downtown Calgary Arena


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

suburbia
Sep 29, 2014, 1:28 AM
I think Firestone could be pretty cool if built out in complete LA Live style and I would almost prefer a stadium and field house up there to one downtown, but there is virtually no comparison of the community integration and pedestrian access of that site to either of the downtown sites.

You're correct in saying that the sites are not the same. Firepark is over 200% of railtown. Clearly the opportunity for a large scale project in Firepark goes way beyond anything that could be built at railtown. I think people who don't understand the clear advantages and possibilities of Firepark, not only with better road access, existing better LRT access, more than double the land, and re-development opportunities at a very large max bell site across the way (including that land you're well over 300% railtown), have their heads stuck up backside of a Beltline drunk. Including the Max Bell site in the larger development project, you reach all the way to the mouth of International avenue.

PlanZ
Sep 29, 2014, 1:38 AM
Because it's not Downtown.

It's also on the wrong side of Deerfoot. Huge physical and mental barrier.

Deepstar
Sep 29, 2014, 2:29 AM
I don't understand by what standard a location that is situated around Deerfoot, Memorial and Barlow and is ten minutes from downtown by LRT is "isolation at a whole other level".

It may be near the Deerfoot and the LRT, but from a pedestrian standpoint, it is completely isolated. There is zero opportunity to have a vibrant arena district unless it is near downtown.

The Fisher Account
Sep 29, 2014, 2:54 AM
Yeah, I mean seriously guys.. give up the FirePark dream already. It's not going to happen.

suburbia
Sep 29, 2014, 3:18 AM
It's also on the wrong side of Deerfoot. Huge physical and mental barrier.

So is the airport, so unless you're going to limit yourself to planes departing from and arriving at Springbank, get over it.

I'm blown away that people who appreciate the nuances of the Beltline have a fear of Firepark.

PlanZ
Sep 29, 2014, 3:23 AM
So is the airport, so unless you're going to limit yourself to planes departing from and arriving at Springbank, get over it.

I'm blown away that people who appreciate the nuances of the Beltline have a fear of Firepark.
Did you just compare the airport to a sports and entertainment venue? :haha:

Policy Wonk
Sep 29, 2014, 5:06 AM
It may be near the Deerfoot and the LRT, but from a pedestrian standpoint, it is completely isolated. There is zero opportunity to have a vibrant arena district unless it is near downtown.

And those pedestrians can't ambulate themselves to an LRT station?

How exactly does a giant concrete bunker that will be locked shut 200+ nights a year contribute to vibrancy above and beyond an ordinary pedestrian retail and dining strip?

The anchor of L.A. Live as a year-round business is it's 12,000 theatre seats.

Joborule
Sep 29, 2014, 5:43 AM
I've always considered that hockey arenas are better based in regions that have heavy foot traffic everyday since the venue would get a lot of nightly uses. Such, as close to downtown as possible makes complete sense for them. Building where the action already is, or is walking distance from it should benefit the arena district right off the bat. West Village/Railtown is going to get development that brings more people to it at some point in the future. (Residence, retail, office) Building an arena district would kickstart it.

Firestone make more sense for a large stadium (NFL) if any venue was to be built there since it's a lot of land with not much there at the moment, and the venue would only gets used sparsely. In the long term, it could evolve into a district with lots of the bare land used up, but since residential buildings probably wouldn't be a focus, you wouldn't get as much evening foot traffic, that feeds money into surrounding amenities, as you would in the city centre vicinity.

bt04ku
Sep 29, 2014, 12:41 PM
How exactly does a giant concrete bunker that will be locked shut 200+ nights a year contribute to vibrancy above and beyond an ordinary pedestrian retail and dining strip?

The anchor of L.A. Live as a year-round business is it's 12,000 theatre seats.

No, the anchor is the Staples Center which has "over 250 events a year." Kings, Lakers, Clippers (well over 2,000,000 people) and concerts (500,000+ every year) are what drives L.A. Live.

Like not building out in the boonies and having multiple concourses to efficiently move people, companies who run these arenas know the way to make them profitable is to stuff as many events into them as you possibly can. You're going to have trouble making money on a $300M+ arena if you're "locked shut 200+ nights a year."

rotten42
Sep 29, 2014, 1:59 PM
I can remember back when SMED took a hard look at putting their office/factory at Firepark. They bailed but I can't remember exactly why. Wasn't there an issue with soil contamination there previously?

Policy Wonk
Sep 29, 2014, 3:28 PM
No, the anchor is the Staples Center which has "over 250 events a year." Kings, Lakers, Clippers (well over 2,000,000 people) and concerts (500,000+ every year) are what drives L.A. Live.

Like not building out in the boonies and having multiple concourses to efficiently move people, companies who run these arenas know the way to make them profitable is to stuff as many events into them as you possibly can. You're going to have trouble making money on a $300M+ arena if you're "locked shut 200+ nights a year."

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were on Venus, how's the weather? On Earth our years are typically 365 days. The guaranteed day-to-day traffic at L.A. Live is the movie theatres (and Nokia theatres) and they are needed to support the restaurants. During the slow times there are all sorts of promotions to that effect. That is a feature found in a lot of similar developments. Theatres bring in a lot of foot traffic when the primary attraction isn't operating. Citywalk at Universal Studios is similar. The restaurants and retailers aren't going to stick around paying rent when the theme park closes at 6:00.

The challenge for amenities in a location like Railtown or the West Village is whether or not they will have a sufficient draw to bring people from outside the area when there is no game or event taking place. That will be defined to a tremendous degree not just by the amenities themselves but also by traffic and parking hassles and just how comfortable people feel in that area at the end of the night.

flipstah
Sep 29, 2014, 3:30 PM
Which brings up the question: if it goes West Village will the stampede entertainment district be dead as a doornail?

Stampede has an entertainment district? :frog:

Policy Wonk
Sep 29, 2014, 3:37 PM
I can remember back when SMED took a hard look at putting their office/factory at Firepark. They bailed but I can't remember exactly why. Wasn't there an issue with soil contamination there previously?

Parts of the site were contaminated with PCB's. But I have been under the impression that was cleaned up years ago.

The biggest problem with the site is probably Yale themselves.

MasterG
Sep 29, 2014, 3:46 PM
Stampede has an entertainment district? :frog:

+1. Stampede's Entertainment District is nothing but smoke and mirrors. If the rumours are true, good on the Flames from pulling away from such an unambitious organization like the Stampede to have a go at creating a district themselves. They may be ambitious about agriculture and rodeos, but creating entertainment districts are clearly outside of the realm of things they are actively interested in doing, other than paying lip service to.

The Stampede has shown nothing in years other than a desire to let a hundred acres of prime real estate sit fallow 355 days a year - for 25+ years and counting - in the fastest growing city in Canada.

They make Brad Lamb look reliable on project timelines in comparison.

For the new arena, one of the biggest pushes being felt by the Flames - and a big reason why they want to keep in in the immediate city centre - is the corporate boxes and sponsorships. The pressure from the big companies to have it accessible to downtown for all events is an enormous influence, I would guess probably more than the influence the city wields at this point. The arena might work out quite well as it seems that all stakeholders are largely in alignment at one of two inner city locations - Flames, sponsors, majority of fans, city officials.

flipstah
Sep 29, 2014, 3:54 PM
+1. Stampede's Entertainment District is nothing but smoke and mirrors. If the rumours are true, good on the Flames from pulling away from such an unambitious organization like the Stampede to have a go at creating a district themselves. They may be ambitious about agriculture and rodeos, but creating entertainment districts are clearly outside of the realm of things they are actively interested in doing, other than paying lip service to.

The Stampede has shown nothing in years other than a desire to let a hundred acres of prime real estate sit fallow 355 days a year - for 25+ years and counting - in the fastest growing city in Canada.

They make Brad Lamb look reliable on project timelines in comparison.

For the new arena, one of the biggest pushes being felt by the Flames - and a big reason why they want to keep in in the immediate city centre - is the corporate boxes and sponsorships. The pressure from the big companies to have it accessible to downtown for all events is an enormous influence, I would guess probably more than the influence the city wields at this point. The arena might work out quite well as it seems that all stakeholders are largely in alignment at one of two inner city locations - Flames, sponsors, majority of fans, city officials.

The only time I'd ever go to that area are:

- Concerts I bought tickets for
- Stampede 1/10 days because as a Calgarian, it's all the same every year so once is sufficient
- If the Flyers are in town

Other than that, there's no BIG incentive for me to go past 7th Ave. Cowboys suck and I'd rather drive to Grey Eagle for an awesome meal and gamble the night away.

Policy Wonk
Sep 29, 2014, 3:58 PM
No matter how serious they are or aren't. It would be difficult to impossible to get commitments for a project like that when the location of the new area is unsettled.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130307203256/simpsons/images/8/8e/Krusty_Burger_Oil_Rig.jpg
The Simpsons

MasterG
Sep 29, 2014, 4:07 PM
The only time I'd ever go to that area are:

- Concerts I bought tickets for
- Stampede 1/10 days because as a Calgarian, it's all the same every year so once is sufficient
- If the Flyers are in town

Other than that, there's no BIG incentive for me to go past 7th Ave. Cowboys suck and I'd rather drive to Grey Eagle for an awesome meal and gamble the night away.

Same. I usually won't venture past 1st SW or South of Stephen Ave except for the reasons you list, also the occasional event at BMO centre. (no Flyers for me though ;) )

Total ghost town and one of the least pleasant areas of the inner city. It seems like everyone but the Stampede is getting in on the action - all of the Macleod Trail condos, Arriva + Guardians, new Beltline Park, East Village, hotel proposals etc. The Stampede had the jump on all of these and had plans for ages but they failed to join the party. I can hardly blame them - they are a celebration of rural and cowboy culture after all, not a development firm - but they really are missing out on the resurgence of the inner city that everyone else is on-board with. This will be increasingly obvious as the other districts nearby get better and better.

My bet is it will be another decade or so before they come to their senses - probably after a few of the more conservative members of their board retire/pass-away - and realize they ironically are the largest blight in inner Calgary - while still trying to be the preeminent destination district. Those two things rarely coincide peacefully. Except maybe Las Vegas ;)

Policy Wonk
Sep 29, 2014, 4:11 PM
I'm no fan on the Stampede, but there is only so much you can do with fairgrounds and still be fairgrounds.

If history played out differently the Stampede might have moved to the old air base where Mount Royal College is now.

MasterG
Sep 29, 2014, 4:15 PM
I'm no fan on the Stampede, but there is only so much you can do with fairgrounds and still be fairgrounds.

If history played out differently the Stampede might have moved to the old air base where Mount Royal College is now.

They could at least give it a try on the extremely underused part that they annexed from Victoria Park over the years (no fair ground activities have ever occurred here if I recall). All those parking lots along Olympic Way, before you enter the grounds proper from the North (12th Ave south to the Saddledome) are exactly the type of place for development that they say they want but do nothing to actually pursue - a retail/entertainment district. Throw in a few more condos to keep things moving all year round and you can keep the southern wasteland portion for decades more.

hulkrogan
Sep 29, 2014, 6:22 PM
I can speak for myself and my 3 friends that all have season tickets together, and I would 100% attend less games if the arena was at Firepark, for many reasons, including logistics.

I think the Flame's have heard the same thing from many people regarding an arena outside of downtown, and (luckily) want nothing to do with it.

suburbia
Sep 29, 2014, 7:39 PM
I can speak for myself and my 3 friends that all have season tickets together, and I would 100% attend less games if the arena was at Firepark, for many reasons, including logistics.

I think the Flame's have heard the same thing from many people regarding an arena outside of downtown, and (luckily) want nothing to do with it.

That's great. There are many lined up to take your place!

I'm surprised you drive to the games, or do you take the LRT and just making the logistical challenges up (given Firepark is getter connected to existing LRT than railtown)?

suburbia
Sep 29, 2014, 7:41 PM
Stampede has an entertainment district? :frog:

Good point. Railtown is in the middle of no where. An arena there will just guarantee drunks on tracks.

Chadillaccc
Sep 29, 2014, 7:52 PM
:previous: Boy, you is dizzy. What are you smoking up there?

Ice Cream Man
Sep 29, 2014, 9:22 PM
One of the reasons for also breaking away from the Stampede would be to retain all their own parking revenue, which is a sizeable amount.

hulkrogan
Sep 29, 2014, 10:29 PM
That's great. There are many lined up to take your place!

I'm surprised you drive to the games, or do you take the LRT and just making the logistical challenges up (given Firepark is getter connected to existing LRT than railtown)?

Wow you're a dink.

1. There aren't people lined up to take my place. There are games we have troubles giving our tickets away these days. I'm glad the Flames aren't as cocky as you about the marketability of the team, and still remember the days of 12,000 fans per game and nearly losing the franchise.

2. I've driven, walked, biked, taken LRT, Car2go and taxis to the game before. I'm pretty familiar with transportation options to a place I've been 40 times a year for the past 14 years from 3 different residences and several different workplaces.

3. One of the rumored east side downtown locations would have had an underground SE LRT station in the basement. It also would have been walkable form any other LRT lines without transit. How is Firepark better than that?

You have what will be the biggest neighbourhood in Calgary within walking distance from your arena.

You have your largest employment centre within walking distance of your arena.

But yeah, jamming everyone onto the same train line going the same direction to go to Firepark sounds way better!

And if I have to leave a game early to go play hockey, being stuck paying $20 for parking instead of parking for free sounds way better too!

MalcolmTucker
Sep 29, 2014, 10:29 PM
Unless they can rent out parking during the day as well, which would be a gamble, you aren't making money on it.

Ice Cream Man
Sep 29, 2014, 10:54 PM
Unless they can rent out parking during the day as well, which would be a gamble, you aren't making money on it.

Agree to disagree. No worries though.

fusili
Sep 29, 2014, 10:57 PM
I vote for the ATCO lands near Crowchild and MRU. Then push for better transit to both. I'm only half-joking.

That would not be a bad location. I have always thought the 306 should eventually be upgraded to a LRT. The other option would be to have an LRT from Downtown to CFB West/MRU/ATCO lands via Crowchild, then on to Rockyview Hospital and the SW communities of Palliser, Oakridge, Cedarbrae, Braeside, Woodbine and Woodlands via 14th Street and 24th street.

bt04ku
Sep 30, 2014, 12:04 AM
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were on Venus, how's the weather? On Earth our years are typically 365 days. The guaranteed day-to-day traffic at L.A. Live is the movie theatres (and Nokia theatres) and they are needed to support the restaurants. During the slow times there are all sorts of promotions to that effect. That is a feature found in a lot of similar developments. Theatres bring in a lot of foot traffic when the primary attraction isn't operating. Citywalk at Universal Studios is similar. The restaurants and retailers aren't going to stick around paying rent when the theme park closes at 6:00.

I'd consider the theatres more of a 'jockey pump' for such a development. It does keep a constant pressure when the big guys aren't operating but not enough to keep everything open.

Club Nokia and Nokia Theatre are extremely handy to have (the mid-size venue that Calgary so desperately lacks), but their 33 events combined between now and the New Year is dwarfed by the Staples Center's 64 in the same time period.

Staples Center is the meat, everything else is the gravy.

The challenge for amenities in a location like Railtown or the West Village is whether or not they will have a sufficient draw to bring people from outside the area when there is no game or event taking place. That will be defined to a tremendous degree not just by the amenities themselves but also by traffic and parking hassles and just how comfortable people feel in that area at the end of the night.

The advantage of these locations, particularly Railtown, is that the people would already be there (I figure more of the EV and East Beltline developments will be finished by the time an arena isdone), you don't really need to 'bring them in.' As East Village keeps developing, the walk from a downtown office to that location not only is easier and more desirable than trying to leave downtown during rush hour, but would actually be kind of pleasant.

Full Mountain
Sep 30, 2014, 12:15 AM
The only time I'd ever go to that area are:

- Concerts I bought tickets for
- Stampede once because as a Calgarian, it's all the same every year so once is sufficient
- If the Flyers are in town

Other than that, there's no BIG incentive for me to go past 7th Ave. Cowboys suck and I'd rather drive to Grey Eagle for an awesome meal and gamble the night away.

Fixed that for you....:cheers::haha:

Policy Wonk
Sep 30, 2014, 1:44 AM
I'd consider the theatres more of a 'jockey pump' for such a development. It does keep a constant pressure when the big guys aren't operating but not enough to keep everything open.

Club Nokia and Nokia Theatre are extremely handy to have (the mid-size venue that Calgary so desperately lacks), but their 33 events combined between now and the New Year is dwarfed by the Staples Center's 64 in the same time period.

Staples Center is the meat, everything else is the gravy.

There is no question that the Staples Center is the dominant attraction, but that alone can't support the restaurants and retail. They need the consistent theatre traffic to survive. The Nokia facilities also host a lot of private corporate events.

The advantage of these locations, particularly Railtown, is that the people would already be there (I figure more of the EV and East Beltline developments will be finished by the time an arena isdone), you don't really need to 'bring them in.

How many times in a year are you going to eat at a Margaritaville or the Hard Rock Cafe even if it's just a couple blocks from your home? How many times are you going to visit a 100,000 square Flames Fanatic store in a lifetime? Is a cheesy Flames themed bar or whatever Vickers shits out in the general vicinity going to be "your bar"?

Do people who live in Manhattan go to Time Square for a meal?

Spring2008
Sep 30, 2014, 3:13 AM
The better question might be, do you own land in and around Firestone?

Policy Wonk
Oct 1, 2014, 1:38 AM
No, I just think this would be the best potential outcome for that site.

Ramsayfarian
Oct 1, 2014, 2:20 AM
How many times in a year are you going to eat at a Margaritaville or the Hard Rock Cafe even if it's just a couple blocks from your home? How many times are you going to visit a 100,000 square Flames Fanatic store in a lifetime? Is a cheesy Flames themed bar or whatever Vickers shits out in the general vicinity going to be "your bar"?

Do people who live in Manhattan go to Time Square for a meal?

Well said and elegantly put. Your Vickers comment made me physically snort.

Living nearby, you wouldn't catch me dead in either place.
For my own selfish reasons, I hope the Flames relocate to CrossIron Mills.

suburbia
Oct 1, 2014, 3:36 AM
There aren't people lined up to take my place. There are games we have troubles giving our tickets away these days.

Yeah - the current location isn't the best.

I've driven, walked, biked, taken LRT, Car2go and taxis to the game before. I'm pretty familiar with transportation options

So - what exactly is the logistical challenge getting to the Barlow / MaxBell LRT station?

One of the rumored east side downtown locations would have had an underground SE LRT station in the basement. It also would have been walkable form any other LRT lines without transit. How is Firepark better than that?

The Barlow / MaxBell station is well below fire-park grade, and as such, you'd be entering directly in below grade.

But yeah, jamming everyone onto the same train line going the same direction to go to Firepark sounds way better!

You mean like the Stampede grounds?

And if I have to leave a game early to go play hockey, being stuck paying $20 for parking instead of parking for free sounds way better too!

Now you're really confused. Downtown is the worst for parking, and frankly speaking, you should really consider public transit.

Anyway - between Firepark and the MaxBell site, it is over 3 times the railtown site, so it is not apples to apples. The Firepark/Maxbell option would have way more development and some aspects of a full blown TOD integrated.

bt04ku
Oct 1, 2014, 4:19 AM
There is no question that the Staples Center is the dominant attraction, but that alone can't support the restaurants and retail. They need the consistent theatre traffic to survive. The Nokia facilities also host a lot of private corporate events.

Which is handy when you have it next to downtown L.A. If you want corporate events, why would you move it farther from your corporate base?

How many times in a year are you going to eat at a Margaritaville or the Hard Rock Cafe even if it's just a couple blocks from your home? How many times are you going to visit a 100,000 square Flames Fanatic store in a lifetime? Is a cheesy Flames themed bar or whatever Vickers shits out in the general vicinity going to be "your bar"?

Do people who live in Manhattan go to Time Square for a meal?

These wouldn't survive at Firepark either, this wouldn't be a tourist driven area as we aren't a tourist driven city like LA or New York when it comes to these attractions.

If Flames Central can survive on Stephen Ave, an equally cheesy Flames bar would be better served being a stone's throw from their clientele with more 'neighborhood appropriate' amenities to support it and whatever other 'star attractions' would be a part of it. I don't know what kind of daily (mainly weeknight) traffic you'd expect when Chinook offers south drivers the same thing but closer and the Beltline folk who can take the LRT aren't going to Margaritaville so that doesn't leave a whole lot of people clamoring to head that way for anything other than a hockey game in my estimation.

No, I just think this would be the best potential outcome for that site.

While it may be fine for the site, it would be terrible for an arena district given the other options available. Building the Canadian Tire Centre where they did was the best outcome for that site too, doesn't make it a good choice.

bt04ku
Oct 1, 2014, 4:26 AM
You mean like the Stampede grounds?

People in the south take the northbound train, people from the NW and West take the southbound train, this reverses when the game ends. They're on the same line but split up.

At Fire Park, people in the south transfer at City Hall to take the eastbound train that is full of the people from the NW (who would be smart to transfer at 8th St) and West, and all those same people are trying to get on the same train after the game as well.

West Village has a similar problem but at least doesn't have to worry about the people in the West piling on to the same trains as the Red Line folk.

Railtown avoids the problems altogether (shorter walk from City Hall than Vic Park station is from the Saddledome) which means the best station is one that nobody needs to transfer from, and is on a future line to boot.


Transit wise Fire Park is the worst of the three because of where the Flames main customer base comes from.

*Stardust*
Oct 1, 2014, 4:34 AM
Maybe it's time for me to start a new poll again on where the new arena should be? ;)

craner
Oct 1, 2014, 4:46 AM
I think the Flames would br crazy to build the new arena anywhere that isn't within walking distance of downtown. As several others have mentioned, a good portion of their patrons come from the office on gamedays, grab a bite & drink in the downtown vicinity, and then head to the dome.

RyLucky
Oct 1, 2014, 5:17 AM
What do you think the daytime population of Downtown and the Beltline is? 100-150k?

Policy Wonk
Oct 1, 2014, 5:25 AM
Which is handy when you have it next to downtown L.A. If you want corporate events, why would you move it farther from your corporate base?

I have to go to events hosted at the Chinook Cineplex and the Glenmore Inn far more often than I would like.

These wouldn't survive at Firepark either, this wouldn't be a tourist driven area as we aren't a tourist driven city like LA or New York when it comes to these attractions.

Have you been to the Phoenix Coyotes arena? Which is quite literally the middle of the Arizona desert. It has an entertainment and retail district too. It's the type of place boring middle class white people drive their Chevy Cruze to splurge for their anniversary with a $24.99 steak dinner and then take in whatever romantic comedy the Mrs. wants to see.

If Flames Central can survive on Stephen Ave, an equally cheesy Flames bar would be better served being a stone's throw from their clientele with more 'neighborhood appropriate' amenities to support it and whatever other 'star attractions' would be a part of it.

Never the two shall meet. The East Village is going to be drowning in retail and restaurant opportunities. Probably so much so that it will be detrimental to quality. (To say there will probably be plenty of space for Subway franchises and stores that sell rhinestone encrusted iPhone cases) I don't see how "neighborhood appropriate amenities" even figure into an arena district. Why pay a premium on rent to just be a little further away from the residential population?

While it may be fine for the site, it would be terrible for an arena district given the other options available. Building the Canadian Tire Centre where they did was the best outcome for that site too, doesn't make it a good choice.

The Canadian Tire Centre represents the archaic stadium surrounded by a parking lot form, there is nothing within a mile of the place except car dealerships. Assuming Ramsay is joking about Crossiron, I don't think anyone is suggesting that in any location. The arena can be a catalyst for redevelopment of a long distressed area. It isn't just a place to rebuild the Silverdome.

McMurph
Oct 1, 2014, 6:00 AM
Maybe if someone makes Ken King read the never-ending debate in this forum he'll save us all from our suffering and just tell us where it's going to be.

suburbia
Oct 1, 2014, 10:07 AM
People in the south take the northbound train, people from the NW and West take the southbound train, this reverses when the game ends. They're on the same line but split up.

At the Stampede Grounds now, people from the West and NE cannot take their trains, rather, take the same single line that services Stampede Park, and then transfer to other trains. Currently all from the NW, W and NE take the same direction at Stampede. It is dealt with simply by having a few extra train cars ready to go for when the games end, and will be mitigated more so once four car trains are in play. Would be no different at Firepark/Maxbell.

The bus and car access at Stampede is modest at best and probably is better described as sucking, with no direct access to any high bandwidth high speed roads. On this front, it would be much improved at Firepark/Maxbell. North on Barlow to McKnight. East and West on Memorial. North and South on Deerfoot. Remember that this is better for buses as well as cars.

Being between Deerfoot and Barlow at Memorial is not deep NE or SE. It is actually quite well located in context of the entire city. Someone on this thread mentioned Ottawa, and I think that comparison is ridiculous and particularly uneducated.

bt04ku
Oct 1, 2014, 12:39 PM
Have you been to the Phoenix Coyotes arena? Which is quite literally the middle of the Arizona desert. It has an entertainment and retail district too. It's the type of place boring middle class white people drive their Chevy Cruze to splurge for their anniversary with a $24.99 steak dinner and then take in whatever romantic comedy the Mrs. wants to see.

Not nearly enough did which is why it went into foreclosure in 2011 and remains unsold at auction. Everything about that arena and district has been a complete disaster for everybody involved in it's development.

Policy Wonk
Oct 1, 2014, 8:51 PM
Not nearly enough did which is why it went into foreclosure in 2011 and remains unsold at auction. Everything about that arena and district has been a complete disaster for everybody involved in it's development.

The issue was the reliability of the Coyotes as an anchor of the Gila River development. It wasn't till last year that the Coyotes future in Glendale post-bankruptcy was actually secured.

Innersoul1
Oct 1, 2014, 9:47 PM
There aren't many thinks about Edmonton that I am jealous of. I was just perusing their new arena construction page and I am totally jealous. It's certainly amazing to watch that kind of project progress. It's an amazing scale and certainly something exciting for the city! I really hope we have something to get excited about in the near future.

hulkrogan
Oct 1, 2014, 10:03 PM
The issue was the reliability of the Coyotes as an anchor of the Gila River development. It wasn't till last year that the Coyotes future in Glendale post-bankruptcy was actually secured.

It's just the lipstick on a pig version of Ottawa's arena. The location is horrible, and there is a reason the NHL will no longer allow out of town arenas, they've been a disaster everywhere they've been tried.

Policy Wonk
Oct 1, 2014, 10:34 PM
Who is arguing for that?

I'm discussing the peripheral development that accompanies most modern facilities. The issue for the area around the Coyotes, the Westgate Entertainment District, was that it was pretty much a foregone conclusion until last summer that the Coyotes were leaving town.

suburbia
Oct 1, 2014, 11:16 PM
I hear downtown is a complete mess once again because of a "police matter". Complete grid-lock. Buses and cars can't. There will be no hockey game tonight.

WaitWhat?
Oct 1, 2014, 11:17 PM
The issue was the reliability of the Coyotes as an anchor of the Gila River development. It wasn't till last year that the Coyotes future in Glendale post-bankruptcy was actually secured.


One theory is that the Coyote's low turnout to games, along with the Diamondbacks and Suns, is due in part on the city of Phoenix' low density. When only 41% of metro Phoenix lives within 10 miles of downtown, it can be a tall order for season ticketholders to commute into downtown everyday for a Diamondback game or a Suns game every 2 to 3 days. Especially when so few people actually work in downtown Phoenix. This would not be an issue in Calgary.

Or maybe the teams in Phoenix just suck.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/03/how-build-successful-downtown-stadium/1593/

WaitWhat?
Oct 1, 2014, 11:22 PM
I hear downtown is a complete mess once again because of a "police matter". Complete grid-lock. Buses and cars can't. There will be no hockey game tonight.

No hockey game might have more to do with the schedule.

bt04ku
Oct 2, 2014, 12:29 AM
The issue was the reliability of the Coyotes as an anchor of the Gila River development. It wasn't till last year that the Coyotes future in Glendale post-bankruptcy was actually secured.

An entertainment district being dependent on an arena is one thing. Being dependent on just one anchor tenant is a recipe for failure, which is what happened. The only time Westgate was even remotely busy was when the Coyotes played, and the only time it was kind of busy is when they played on a weekend (so people could actually get there in time to have something to eat/go to the bar).

The Coyotes future being in question isn't why people didn't go to Westgate on non-game days and nights or why it's vacancy rate is high. It was a bad project in a worse location.

fusili
Oct 2, 2014, 4:01 AM
I hear downtown is a complete mess once again because of a "police matter". Complete grid-lock. Buses and cars can't. There will be no hockey game tonight.

Arrgghhhhh .............troll smash.......grrrrrrhhhhhh


:shrug:

Policy Wonk
Oct 2, 2014, 4:09 AM
I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore or what it has to do with any of the locations for a Flames arena being discussed here. The circumstances of the Gila River development are very specific, but it is no less representative of a development format found around many stadiums and other attractions. It's a symbiotic relationship where a secondary attraction, usually a theatre or theatres supplies an acceptable level of traffic to the restaurants and other amenities when the stadium or attraction is idle.

The threat of the primary attraction disappearing and therefore tenants refusing to sign or renew leases is quite another situation. And that seems fairly unlikely in this one. Since I don't think the Flames at tremendous expensive are going to develop a new arena and the surrounding area and then threaten to move to a fifty year-old arena in Seattle that smells like mold. But I also don't think in a city where people will stand for an hour or more waiting for a table at the Olive Garden :slob: has exhausted the potential for casual dining "date night" destinations.

bt04ku
Oct 2, 2014, 5:12 AM
I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore or what it has to do with any of the locations for a Flames arena being discussed here.

You're the one who brought up Margaritaville and the burning money pit in Glendale, I figure you'd know.

The circumstances of the Gila River development are very specific, but it is no less representative of a development format found around many stadiums and other attractions. It's a symbiotic relationship where a secondary attraction, usually a theatre or theatres supplies an acceptable level of traffic to the restaurants and other amenities when the stadium or attraction is idle.

I'd say it's the perfect example of an arena district not being an attraction in and of itself. Glendale would be a more extreme example because of just how far it is away from their main market, but it is still the greatest mess of any planned arena development around (it was extremely close to bankrupting ALL parties involved, the only holdout being the city of Glendale who is merely losing more and more money after draining various city funds and cutting services as a result).

While Westgate was crippled by even the threat of the arena's anchor tenant leaving, the Spring Center in Kansas City remains without one but still has a thriving entertainment district that was built along with it (next to downtown Kansas City), as do arenas with anchor tenants like Columbus (also next to downtown Columbus), the SHED in Winnipeg (downtown Winnipeg) and L.A. Live (the trend continues).

Firepark's biggest advantage is that it is on a transit stop, even if that transit stop isn't as good as some of the other locations. It needlessly separates the corporate base, it is the wrong direction from downtown, is kind of a tease with it's road access (a lot of people can get to the Memorial/Barlow intersection really fast at least) and is isolated from all pedestrian traffic.

Firepark is the best bad location, but it is still a bad location.

Bassic Lab
Oct 2, 2014, 5:56 AM
At the Stampede Grounds now, people from the West and NE cannot take their trains, rather, take the same single line that services Stampede Park, and then transfer to other trains. Currently all from the NW, W and NE take the same direction at Stampede. It is dealt with simply by having a few extra train cars ready to go for when the games end, and will be mitigated more so once four car trains are in play. Would be no different at Firepark/Maxbell.

The bus and car access at Stampede is modest at best and probably is better described as sucking, with no direct access to any high bandwidth high speed roads. On this front, it would be much improved at Firepark/Maxbell. North on Barlow to McKnight. East and West on Memorial. North and South on Deerfoot. Remember that this is better for buses as well as cars.

Being between Deerfoot and Barlow at Memorial is not deep NE or SE. It is actually quite well located in context of the entire city. Someone on this thread mentioned Ottawa, and I think that comparison is ridiculous and particularly uneducated.

The Saddledome is also a ten minute walk from City Hall Station where W-NE trains stop. The SE LRT will have a station closer than that when its built. Furthermore, a new arena on the Stampede grounds would likely be north of the Saddledome, putting it even closer to the other train lines. Firepark is in no way comparable to that.

speedog
Oct 2, 2014, 6:21 AM
How about the whole McMahon/Father David Bauer complex/baseball stadium/sports fields being redeveloped as part of a endowment for the U of C with Flames retaining all parking revenues on Flames Org. event days and all concessions going to Flames as they currently are at McMahon?

This land area would easily accommodate a new arena/stadium/fieldhouse.

Policy Wonk
Oct 2, 2014, 6:55 AM
You're the one who brought up Margaritaville and the burning money pit in Glendale, I figure you'd know.

I bought up an example of an amenity that is pretty ubiquitous in areas such as these and yet unlikely to be patronized by people living in the immediate area. I question the degree to which a stadium that will be closed a great many nights of an earth year is really a net addition to a largely residential area.

The issue I raise is that to attract even crappy chain restaurants to an area such as this you need amenities that will draw at least tepid patronage the rest of the nights of an earth year. These are often theatres. You need both sides of the equation or everything breaks down. The Gila River development suffered from more than five years of crippling ambiguity and was resolved only recently. But what one finds there is roughly what would be built anywhere, an outdoor pedestrian lifestyle centre, heavy on slightly upmarket casual dining resturants with a large movie theatre where there would otherwise be parking spots.

While Westgate was crippled by even the threat of the arena's anchor tenant leaving, the Spring Center in Kansas City remains without one but still has a thriving entertainment district that was built along with it (next to downtown Kansas City), as do arenas with anchor tenants like Columbus (also next to downtown Columbus), the SHED in Winnipeg (downtown Winnipeg) and L.A. Live (the trend continues).

And the probability of the Flames leaving a newly built arena at Firestone or in the West Village is what exactly? And just to nitpick, isn't the Spring Center, it's the Sprint Center.

Firepark is the best bad location, but it is still a bad location.

I look at this very simply. What area would be the most elevated by this type of development combined with the probability of it developing satisfactorily on it's own. The West Village would benefit enormously from something with a really, really big parkade. But it will get their on it's own. The location is just too good. Firestone looks today roughly what it looked like thirty years ago. It's a microcosm of the wasteland east of the South LRT. It's just too big and too bleak to be developed piecemeal but opportunities to blanket it over are few. This though being one of them.

McMurph
Oct 2, 2014, 3:43 PM
It's the whole idea of a multi-use, multi-sport, massive facility that has opened up this conversation. If it were only an arena then there would be no debate -- it would be somewhere (anywhere, really) in the centre of the city for all the reasons everyone has already articulated. You could stick it on the IOL site and sell air rights to Tall Bob. But adding the footprint of a stadium and fieldhouse gives the thing a much larger perimeter with significantly less use. That kind of place can't be shoehorned into an existing neighbourhood. That's what makes Firestone more appealing.

The timeline is key. It would take decades for a entertainment / sports destination at Firestone to become a real happening hub. At the same time (in decades) West Village and Railtown would both be built out in a way that would be a far better use of the land than what the Flames could currently offer. In 30 years I would resent a stadium downtown. Calgary isn't St Louis (or any other hollowed out hopeless american city) -- we don't need a stadium downtown to revitalize anything. I think we would very soon find that it gets in the way of the city we've been trying to build.

I hope the Flames separate the arena from the stadium. Give us a great downtown arena and a decent, slightly more peripheral, stadium (as with a McMahon reno). Or be bold and try to quickly build out an LA Live type centre at Firestone, with the risk that the facilities would be archaic by the time the area plan finally starts to work.

For what it's worth, the football stadium itself at LA Live (Farmer's Field) has been held up for over a decade and may never be built.

Policy Wonk
Oct 2, 2014, 4:12 PM
For what it's worth, the football stadium itself at LA Live (Farmer's Field) has been held up for over a decade and may never be built.

Well there is the slight issue of Los Angeles not having had a football team for the last twenty years. In any event even NFL owners who have flirted with a move to L.A. didn't seem too interested in doing business with Anschutz.

MasterG
Oct 2, 2014, 5:21 PM
It's the whole idea of a multi-use, multi-sport, massive facility that has opened up this conversation. If it were only an arena then there would be no debate -- it would be somewhere (anywhere, really) in the centre of the city for all the reasons everyone has already articulated. You could stick it on the IOL site and sell air rights to Tall Bob. But adding the footprint of a stadium and fieldhouse gives the thing a much larger perimeter with significantly less use. That kind of place can't be shoehorned into an existing neighbourhood. That's what makes Firestone more appealing.

The timeline is key. It would take decades for a entertainment / sports destination at Firestone to become a real happening hub. At the same time (in decades) West Village and Railtown would both be built out in a way that would be a far better use of the land than what the Flames could currently offer. In 30 years I would resent a stadium downtown. Calgary isn't St Louis (or any other hollowed out hopeless american city) -- we don't need a stadium downtown to revitalize anything. I think we would very soon find that it gets in the way of the city we've been trying to build.

I hope the Flames separate the arena from the stadium. Give us a great downtown arena and a decent, slightly more peripheral, stadium (as with a McMahon reno). Or be bold and try to quickly build out an LA Live type centre at Firestone, with the risk that the facilities would be archaic by the time the area plan finally starts to work.

For what it's worth, the football stadium itself at LA Live (Farmer's Field) has been held up for over a decade and may never be built.

I would agree that a inner city football stadium in conjunction with the arena is too much for one neighbourhood (unless a stadium is built over the existing wasteland of the Stampede Park in conjunction with a new arena but that option isn't on the table).

Doing both stadiums in one area would not be appealing wherever it is you are right - it is simply too large of a site devoted to one use. They should split them up.

The hockey arena is vastly better utilized, smaller and better to integrate into the urban form and really offers a huge benefit to being next to the hub of office/residential downtown. Sponsorships, concerts, corporate partners - there is no other place it should be to maximize the attractiveness to these stakeholders. The transportation connections are there already and the pre/post game economy of bars and restaurants are already developed.

A football stadium at Firestone might not be terrible - but that is largely due to the fact that Banff Trail is prime for redevelopment and a stadium is a terrible use of space in the NW Hub. Due to the proximity to Deerfoot and Memorial, Firestone will never redevelop to anything urban or attractive. It has terrible urban form and will always remain disconnected from the city centre, even if it appears close on the map.

We are not talking about the mental block of the vacant (soon to be filled in) East Village gap that makes Inglewood and the east of Calgary seem much farther away. The Deerfoot valley is many times wider and much less attractive. It will never be anything more than a dirty transportation corridor and associated connections like Memorial Drive will suffer because of this. No proposal for Firestone will be able to ameliorate the hugely unattractive negatives of being next to these two corridors.

With that said, if we want to make a football stadium as a proposal to reuse and clean up Firestone, let's do it. But let's not kid ourselves, entertainment district/urban place-making this is not. Nothing realistic you could build at Firestone would make that area attractive. It is simply a transfer of a sea of parking lots to a new area and a newer-looking stadium to a empty area that is impossible to be much else beyond that.

So I would prefer Railtown for the arena (although I can live with West Village) and Firestone for the Football Stadium. Firestone will just become another McMahon area, but frees up the vastly greater potential of redeveloping the existing McMahon site.

Innersoul1
Oct 2, 2014, 5:31 PM
Let's think outside of the box for a moment with regard to the stadium/arena/fieldhouse combo. If executed properly we could actually see much more action on this site then we are thinking, potentially taking it out from being a total deadzone. IF the stadium could somehow incorporate a retractable roof it would open up a lot of potential for tradeshows and concerts, as is the case with BC place. Let'e assume that the arena would also bring in a lot more concert traffic as well. The fieldhouse could also have a lot of potential use with minor sports and recreation especially considering how places like the Talisman Centre are bursting at the seams.

To me what this comes down to is execution. If the Flames want to go in at such a large scale there needs to be significant planning and attention to detail. It needs to be done properly and elegantly as a showpiece for the city not just something thrown together.

MasterG
Oct 2, 2014, 5:52 PM
Let's think outside of the box for a moment with regard to the stadium/arena/fieldhouse combo. If executed properly we could actually see much more action on this site then we are thinking, potentially taking it out from being a total deadzone. IF the stadium could somehow incorporate a retractable roof it would open up a lot of potential for tradeshows and concerts, as is the case with BC place. Let'e assume that the arena would also bring in a lot more concert traffic as well. The fieldhouse could also have a lot of potential use with minor sports and recreation especially considering how places like the Talisman Centre are bursting at the seams.

To me what this comes down to is execution. If the Flames want to go in at such a large scale there needs to be significant planning and attention to detail. It needs to be done properly and elegantly as a showpiece for the city not just something thrown together.

True. Part of my hesitation to put all the facilities together is that I have little confidence it will be done right.

It could be a real gem if they pull it off, it just seems to be difficult enough that there aren't many examples of a project as significant as a multi-stadium complex succeeding in all the ways it has to - vitality to the community, avoidance of a dead-zone, pedestrian-friendly, multi-use, accessible by transit.

Edmonton seems to have really done something right with their approach to lump it in with a major revitalization and downtown office/hotel/condo development in a land-efficient package well served by transit. Hopefully it works out for them and sets the bar high-enough we don't get a more typical outcome when sports companies try to be developers.

Spring2008
Oct 2, 2014, 7:06 PM
Great ideas!

Let's think outside of the box for a moment with regard to the stadium/arena/fieldhouse combo. If executed properly we could actually see much more action on this site then we are thinking, potentially taking it out from being a total deadzone. IF the stadium could somehow incorporate a retractable roof it would open up a lot of potential for tradeshows and concerts, as is the case with BC place. Let'e assume that the arena would also bring in a lot more concert traffic as well. The fieldhouse could also have a lot of potential use with minor sports and recreation especially considering how places like the Talisman Centre are bursting at the seams.

To me what this comes down to is execution. If the Flames want to go in at such a large scale there needs to be significant planning and attention to detail. It needs to be done properly and elegantly as a showpiece for the city not just something thrown together.

bt04ku
Oct 2, 2014, 7:11 PM
While Firestone is a hill I am willing to die on I. Regards to keeping an arena away from it, I don't really care if a stadium goes there. However a stadium wouldn't really be a great driver for any sort of TOD due to the lack of events it can hold, even with a retractable roof (which would greatly add to the cost). It would just be a big footprint to take up.

suburbia
Oct 2, 2014, 10:38 PM
Firepark's biggest advantage is that it is on a transit stop, even if that transit stop isn't as good as some of the other locations. It needlessly separates the corporate base, it is the wrong direction from downtown, is kind of a tease with it's road access (a lot of people can get to the Memorial/Barlow intersection really fast at least) and is isolated from all pedestrian traffic.

You're forgetting that between firepark & maxbell, it is also three times as large as railtown. One could do a heck of a lot with that much potential.

Regarding quality of the train station, that can be improved as required.

suburbia
Oct 2, 2014, 10:43 PM
So I would prefer Railtown for the arena (although I can live with West Village) and Firestone for the Football Stadium. Firestone will just become another McMahon area, but frees up the vastly greater potential of redeveloping the existing McMahon site.

I could live with that split, though I think firestone + max bell could do a lot of development in addition to having both. You'd probably put the stadium on top with commercial developments around. You'd put the arena below in the max bell area, with a mezzanine level entry from the train station that would be lined with restaurants and services. Could actually to a heck of a lot more than that, but just a start. Integrating the train station better would be important, and I think that would be an easy no brainer for this site.

Let's think outside of the box for a moment with regard to the stadium/arena/fieldhouse combo. If executed properly we could actually see much more action on this site then we are thinking, potentially taking it out from being a total deadzone. IF the stadium could somehow incorporate a retractable roof it would open up a lot of potential for tradeshows and concerts, as is the case with BC place.

Agree with this, and I think Firepark is the only site that could allow for a stadium / field house combo that together would be an exceptional trade show / convention facility, with the arena and services all on the same massive complex.

My feeling from the last time I chatted with Ken was that they indeed are thinking way more multi-purpose than the current two individual buildings. It would take a bigger bite out of the Stampede than just parking.

While Firestone is a hill I am willing to die on I. Regards to keeping an arena away from it, I don't really care if a stadium goes there. However a stadium wouldn't really be a great driver for any sort of TOD due to the lack of events it can hold, even with a retractable roof (which would greatly add to the cost). It would just be a big footprint to take up.

Which part of "three times larger than railtown" don't you get?

MasterG
Oct 2, 2014, 10:54 PM
I could live with that split, though I think firestone + max bell could do a lot of development in addition to having both. You'd probably put the stadium on top with commercial developments around. You'd put the arena below in the max bell area, with a mezzanine level entry from the train station that would be lined with restaurants and services. Could actually to a heck of a lot more than that, but just a start. Integrating the train station better would be important, and I think that would be an easy no brainer for this site.

That may work for a stadium. The area just really isn't that attractive so the proposal would have to be enormous to make a dent on sheer size of the blight. The population density is too low in every direction for kilometres to have any sort of vitality beyond another big-box store development. It is true you have an enormous amount of space, but it would have to be thousands of residential units, an entirely rethought (more likely thought for the first time) pedestrian network, the likes of which an area east of Deerfoot has never seen. Commercial, retail and office would likely all be required to add enough activity to the site to make it something. And you have to do this with several immutable detractors to the site: Memorial Drive freeway dividing it North and South, low-density industrial stretching far to the north, and the ever increasing in enormity and barrier of Deerfoot Trail. All this means that the area would have to support itself, it can't bank on being near other active and vibrant areas like Railtown or West Village.

It could absolutely work, but I doubt a football team would stomach the burden of such a project.

suburbia
Oct 3, 2014, 2:30 AM
That may work for a stadium. The area just really isn't that attractive so the proposal would have to be enormous to make a dent on sheer size of the blight. The population density is too low in every direction for kilometres to have any sort of vitality beyond another big-box store development. It is true you have an enormous amount of space, but it would have to be thousands of residential units, an entirely rethought (more likely thought for the first time) pedestrian network, the likes of which an area east of Deerfoot has never seen. Commercial, retail and office would likely all be required to add enough activity to the site to make it something. And you have to do this with several immutable detractors to the site: Memorial Drive freeway dividing it North and South, low-density industrial stretching far to the north, and the ever increasing in enormity and barrier of Deerfoot Trail. All this means that the area would have to support itself, it can't bank on being near other active and vibrant areas like Railtown or West Village.

It could absolutely work, but I doubt a football team would stomach the burden of such a project.

Having been to the LA convention centre for events (it is connected to Staples Centre, the Nokia Theatre and the restaurants around that) I can tell you that there are not "thousands of residential units" around it. Same can be said more most stadia. Yes, you need development, but you don't need thousands of residential units within a few hundred feet to make it work. Professional teams require attendees from across the entire city.

The Firepark and MaxBell lands are prime, prime, prime, with a magnificent view of the valley, downtown, and the mountains beyond. It could be amazing, and just like any larger development area, it would require multiple groups coming in after a master site plan is laid out.

bt04ku
Oct 3, 2014, 2:44 AM
Which part of "three times larger than railtown" don't you get?

I guess the part where it matters. Between a good location and a bad location, I'd take a third of the land for the good one myself, but that's just me.

googspecial
Oct 3, 2014, 1:28 PM
What are the boundaries for Firepark? I have some extra time at work today and will attempt some mock up overlays of stadiums and arenas in the 3 areas.

Also, any suggestions for which buildings to use? Was thinking BC Place for stadium. Undecided on an arena.

MasterG
Oct 3, 2014, 3:41 PM
Having been to the LA convention centre for events (it is connected to Staples Centre, the Nokia Theatre and the restaurants around that) I can tell you that there are not "thousands of residential units" around it. Same can be said more most stadia. Yes, you need development, but you don't need thousands of residential units within a few hundred feet to make it work. Professional teams require attendees from across the entire city.

The Firepark and MaxBell lands are prime, prime, prime, with a magnificent view of the valley, downtown, and the mountains beyond. It could be amazing, and just like any larger development area, it would require multiple groups coming in after a master site plan is laid out.

Residential should be included at any new development of this size. Perhaps not as the primary draw, but if you are going to redo a big area, residential is a gentler land-use change from the existing neighbourhood than multi-storey parking garages. It never hurts to add residential and businesses that may be a part of the retail mix will be thankful for it, especially when a football stadium only is used 15 times a year. To be anywhere close to successful, it requires football being one of several reasons to visit the area. Without residential units and a significant boost in density you are looking at one hell of a large parking lot and just another big-box store development full of traffic congestion and large trucks.

McMurph
Oct 3, 2014, 3:46 PM
For a stadium I'd go for Investor's Group in Winnipeg. It's new and probably much closer to the capacity of what the Stamps would be looking at. I think domes like BC Place are a thing of the past.

If you want to throw in an MLS field I think Houston's is the newest soccer-specific facility in North America.

Riise
Oct 3, 2014, 4:15 PM
To me what this comes down to is execution. If the Flames want to go in at such a large scale there needs to be significant planning and attention to detail. It needs to be done properly and elegantly as a showpiece for the city not just something thrown together.

There are two areas of planning/design where this type of development would struggle: Mixed Use and Fine Grain Urbanism.

Jane Jacobs went to town describing the benefits of having a healthy mix of uses in an area. While an arena and a stadium could be trip generators, great neighbourhoods are made up of a variety of trip generators that spread the action throughout the day. Wouldn't an arena and a stadium be two massive examples of very similar uses? They would take up a large portion of their immediate neighbourhood and put a lot of pressure on the limited number of sites remaining to provide a great deal of the variety required for vibrancy.

Shorter blocks are arguably more conducive to urbanism and a healthy streetlife. Nevertheless, a city will require at least a few superblocks to accommodate special uses. If a fine grain is preferred, we'd be placing quite a burden on architects and urban designers to come up with a design for a development that would require two superblocks in a part of a city where urbanism is demanded.

The level of design in Calgary is rapidly improving but sometimes we still struggle with the basics. An arena and stadium combination would be a very complex design that I think would simply be asking too much, too soon.

Innersoul1
Oct 3, 2014, 4:39 PM
For a stadium I'd go for Investor's Group in Winnipeg. It's new and probably much closer to the capacity of what the Stamps would be looking at. I think domes like BC Place are a thing of the past.

If you want to throw in an MLS field I think Houston's is the newest soccer-specific facility in North America.

As much as a covered or retractable roof would open up a lot of options (concerts, conferences, tradeshows etc.) i don't thing the dollars and cents add up at this point. However, there are numerous models of covered (and retractable) or semi-covered stadia that fit that 20,000-35,000 seat range. If we want to be forward thinking we need to be mindful of a venue that can host soccer matches. MLS is a pipe dream at this point in the game, but even being able to host friendlies or international games should be taken into account. A venue that has great sight lines and protects the fans from the elements (somewhat) would be nice and certainly a boon for attendance.

Good points about Investors Group Stadium, certainly the best in the CFL. BBVA Compass Stadium in Houston is nice, great size. I would take that with the cantilevered roof all the way around. At 22,000 capacity it's a little bit small but it was built for $97 million which isn't to bad.

Riise has posted some great examples of European stadia that have design quality and meet the needs of an environment like Calgary. I believe if we go the pipe dream route check out this 30,000 seater from Stockholm for a paltry 400 million :cool:
http://vimeo.com/89387106

googspecial
Oct 3, 2014, 6:50 PM
Ok didn't end up having as much extra time as I thought I would. Quickly threw these together, using IG Field and Saddledome. Not the greatest quality, but whatever. I also showed the nearest LRT stations respective to each location.

To be honest, I was very pro-West Village... But after doing this I've realized Railtown really would be the best spot. With East Village and all those fancy new tall condo buildings in East Vic Park, this would fill the area in nice. I spaced them as such because I imagine a plaza between the buildings where the SE line would somehow interact with the district, whether under, at or below grade. With Orchard going up across the street, there isn't TONS of left over space for an LA Live sized entertainment district. But obviously it wouldn't need to be that large. And that is assuming Stampede does nothing for the area.
http://i.imgur.com/6bL24Qj.png




West Village would be great for that end of town, but I feel it would cost the most. With reconfiguration of the nearby road networks, upgrading an existing LRT station, adding underground parking etc.. It could certainly be the coolest location for all of this to go, and I would love to drive down the Bow Trail viaducts past these buildings, or into a tunnel underneath. But that's a dirty word in this city.
http://i.imgur.com/C4A3oD8.png



Firepark... Just no. I foresee swaths of surface lots if it goes here. There's just too much space, it would be difficult to entice 3rd parties to build there due to it's distance from the core, and being a dead zone on non-event days. (Yes I've read all the pro points for it, but just no)
http://i.imgur.com/av8IEeb.png

Full Mountain
Oct 3, 2014, 6:56 PM
Ok didn't end up having as much extra time as I thought I would. Quickly threw these together, using IG Field and Saddledome. Not the greatest quality, but whatever. I also showed the nearest LRT stations respective to each location.

To be honest, I was very pro-West Village... But after doing this I've realized Railtown really would be the best spot. With East Village and all those fancy new tall condo buildings in East Vic Park, this would fill the area in nice. I spaced them as such because I imagine a plaza between the buildings where the SE line would somehow interact with the district, whether under, at or below grade. With Orchard going up across the street, there isn't TONS of left over space for an LA Live sized entertainment district. But obviously it wouldn't need to be that large. And that is assuming Stampede does nothing for the area.
http://i.imgur.com/6bL24Qj.png


To bad you're not likely to ever get the bus barns, pretty sure transit is going to hold on to that for a very long time.

googspecial
Oct 3, 2014, 7:00 PM
To bad you're not likely to ever get the bus barns, pretty sure transit is going to hold on to that for a very long time.

Such with West Village and Greyhound, GSL & Mercedes...

Wouldn't it be easier for the city to expropriate from one of their own entities?

suburbia
Oct 3, 2014, 7:10 PM
What are the boundaries for Firepark? I have some extra time at work today and will attempt some mock up overlays of stadiums and arenas in the 3 areas.

Also, any suggestions for which buildings to use? Was thinking BC Place for stadium. Undecided on an arena.

Make sure for firepark you also include the maxbell lands on the other side of the train station. Between these two tiered sites, it is massive, and also a bridge virtually to the mouth of International Avenue.

suburbia
Oct 3, 2014, 7:14 PM
Firepark... Just no. I foresee swaths of surface lots if it goes here. There's just too much space, it would be difficult to entice 3rd parties to build there due to it's distance from the core, and being a dead zone on non-event days. (Yes I've read all the pro points for it, but just no)
http://i.imgur.com/av8IEeb.png

That's a joke of a comment. All along we've been talking about a wider mind-set development that includes commercial, services / restaurants, residential, and with direct LRT access.

Your drawing just demonstrated how large Firepark is to be able to do all of that (not to mention MaxBell lands to the south, which would all need to be part of a master plan).

Railtown was confirmed to not be nearly large enough, as you plopped the stadium on top of the bus barns, which are not available.

googspecial
Oct 3, 2014, 7:21 PM
Oh jeeze I wasn't aware the bus barn was completely non-negotiable. This was all fantasy anyways, no?

MalcolmTucker
Oct 3, 2014, 7:22 PM
To bad you're not likely to ever get the bus barns, pretty sure transit is going to hold on to that for a very long time.

Also, the province owns the land where the arena is posited to be for a high speed rail station.

googspecial
Oct 3, 2014, 7:59 PM
Also, the province owns the land where the arena is posited to be for a high speed rail station.

Is there any plans for the parcel just north of the tracks there? I would think this to be a better utilization of land for a station.

speedog
Oct 3, 2014, 8:19 PM
http://i.imgur.com/6bL24Qj.png
Move the stadium one block to the west - that takes care of the bus barn issues and I don't believe that the Stampede owns any land north of 12th Avenue. The SE line station location isn't probably set in stone yet and could probably be moved half a block to the west to better accommodate both a new arena and stadium and there'd even be enough room for a field house too. Quite close to any future high speed rail station as well.

Still won't have those great views that Firepark has but a view isn't what a new arena and stadium should be about anyways. One advantage Firepark has is it's proximity to Deerfoot, Memorial, Barlow and even 16th Avenue NE and 17th Avenue SE with a possibility (far fetched) of some flyovers that directly connect to Deerfoot.

fusili
Oct 3, 2014, 8:34 PM
Make sure for firepark you also include the maxbell lands on the other side of the train station. Between these two tiered sites, it is massive, and also a bridge virtually to the mouth of International Avenue.

You do know that international avenue is on 17th avenue SE right?

H.E.Pennypacker
Oct 3, 2014, 8:34 PM
Wouldn't be surprised to see the Flames seeking money from the municipality for a new complex ... Not that the City would be very willing to do that in the first place, but choosing the Railtown location and incorporating a large C-train/High speed rail station into the design would be a way to get the government think twice about contributing money

IMO bridging a station on the north parcels and bridging over the tracks to a complex would be a hell of a way connect the EV with Victoria Park

MasterG
Oct 3, 2014, 8:37 PM
Is there any plans for the parcel just north of the tracks there? I would think this to be a better utilization of land for a station.

I assume the usual CPR intransigence would prevent some over the tracks development if that was to be required?

Having both stadiums in the same spot is a bad idea. The football stadium is also of too little value to have in the inner city, I can't see it generating enough activity to actually be a benefit to the neighbourhood.


Arena in Railtown
Football Stadium in Firepark
Redevelop McMahon area as high-density mixed use with field house in Foothills Athletic Park

tomthumb2
Oct 3, 2014, 8:47 PM
West Village would be great for that end of town, but I feel it would cost the most. With reconfiguration of the nearby road networks, upgrading an existing LRT station, adding underground parking etc.. It could certainly be the coolest location for all of this to go, and I would love to drive down the Bow Trail viaducts past these buildings, or into a tunnel underneath. But that's a dirty word in this city.

Why is that? I think Bow Trail going under that area would be great. Would give more room too. They built a tunnel at the airport and no one screamed about that (or did I miss that).

That entire Bow Trail/Crowchild disaster is eventually going to have to be fixed anyway!

googspecial
Oct 3, 2014, 8:48 PM
IMO bridging a station on the north parcels and bridging over the tracks to a complex would be a hell of a way connect the EV with Victoria Park

I agree. This is where my mind was going playing around with this. But I guess it can be nothing but a dream :rolleyes:

suburbia
Oct 3, 2014, 9:35 PM
You do know that international avenue is on 17th avenue SE right?

Yes - the max bell lands reach all the way. What the master plan would need to do is create a promenade to make that bridge.

See:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0420896,-114.0000748,2556m/data=!3m1!1e3

In fact, where the max bell lands connect to 17th SE is precisely where there are plans for a performance space, part of the International Avenue Arts and Culture Centre. http://iaacc.ca

It is on this triangular piece of land:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0368096,-113.9967809,18z

Now read my lips ...

If you include Firepark, all of the Max Bell lands, and bridge to the IAACC at the mouth of International avenue, integrate the terraced lands on the two sides of Memorial with an integrated LRT station, have a promenade all the way through to the new performing arts centre (which is already being worked), and then work the International Avenue transit angle, you can have an absolutely out of this world district that would encapsulate all of the best elements of mixed use you can think of.

BTW FUsilly - given you supposedly have me on ignore, to play that act through all the way you need to stop responding to my posts.

nick.flood
Oct 3, 2014, 10:18 PM
delete

Spring2008
Oct 3, 2014, 10:23 PM
Apparently inner-city Calgary doesn't meet Suburbia's lofty standards, but the NE and 17th AV SE do??

nick.flood
Oct 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
delete

suburbia
Oct 3, 2014, 10:43 PM
That will never survive on just 41 NHL hockey games, 32 +/- Concerts/Acts, 36 WHL games, 9 CFL games, and 8 NLL games.

You guys are really challenged. The area identified between firepark and max bell lands through to the new performance space at 17th, is plenty large enough for a very substantial mixed use master plan. It is as large and possibly larger than all of EV.

The Fisher Account
Oct 3, 2014, 11:08 PM
Cough

THERE WILL NOT BE AN ARENA IN FIREPARK. GET OVER IT ALREADY.

Innersoul1
Oct 3, 2014, 11:12 PM
I dig Suburbia's passion about the Firepark/Max Bell sites. However, after seeing those google maps images I would still lean toward Railtown and West Village. Firepark is just too much of a node for me. It's isolated. On the north side of Memorial you have industrial lands. Really you aren't going to attract business to that area. To the south near the Max Bell site, you have 17th Ave SE which as vibrant as it is in its own way is pretty ghetto. Again it would take a lot to have stakeholders (restaurateurs, shops, stores, hotels etc.) invest in the revitalization of those areas.

The Railtown site certainly benefits from proximity to the Stampede grounds and the East Village where you will already have proximity to density and established businesses, restaurants, pubs and clubs plus the proximity to downtown means that any businesses or entertainment zones attached to the arena will be used by the downtown crowd.

West Village offers the opportunity to revitalize the west end. I suspect that proximity to the already established zone of high density condos in that area will be bolstered by businesses willing to move in to an area that will be supported by both dwellers and arena patrons. Again there will be benefits from the proximity to downtown.

The big thing for me with regard to the West Village site is the integration of the LRT into the site itself. One of the things that I really like about the Edmonton site is how the LRT runs right through it (although the actual integration could be better worked out. I have no issues with walking a few blocks from the LRT to the stadium as would be the case with the Railtown site. But the potential to have the Sunalta LRT factor directly into the stadium is pretty amazing. It would literally be a short skip to the stadium. If a station head (access facilities) was built on the west side of the existing Sunalta station you would be able to directly access the station itself which would be pretty cool. Even if Bow Trail were to run under the stadium as Expo Blvd does in Vancouver it would save costs that could be associated with tunneling.

McMurph
Oct 3, 2014, 11:59 PM
Thanks for the diagrams. I was under the impression that it's not desirable to give a stadium an east-west configuration as shown in the WV layout, and it doesn't look like it would quite fit anywhere around there if in a N-S alignment.

googspecial
Oct 4, 2014, 12:53 AM
Thanks for the diagrams. I was under the impression that it's not desirable to give a stadium an east-west configuration as shown in the WV layout, and it doesn't look like it would quite fit anywhere around there if in a N-S alignment.

With the stadium I used it really encroached on the river and railway going N-S. So I just put it E-W for ease of visualization of its space. Certainly if Bow Trail was buried it could work.

suburbia
Oct 4, 2014, 4:00 AM
I dig Suburbia's passion about the Firepark/Max Bell sites. However, after seeing those google maps images I would still lean toward Railtown and West Village. Firepark is just too much of a node for me. It's isolated. On the north side of Memorial you have industrial lands. Really you aren't going to attract business to that area. To the south near the Max Bell site, you have 17th Ave SE which as vibrant as it is in its own way is pretty ghetto. Again it would take a lot to have stakeholders (restaurateurs, shops, stores, hotels etc.) invest in the revitalization of those areas.

The Railtown site certainly benefits from proximity to the Stampede grounds and the East Village where you will already have proximity to density and established businesses, restaurants, pubs and clubs plus the proximity to downtown means that any businesses or entertainment zones attached to the arena will be used by the downtown crowd.

West Village offers the opportunity to revitalize the west end. I suspect that proximity to the already established zone of high density condos in that area will be bolstered by businesses willing to move in to an area that will be supported by both dwellers and arena patrons. Again there will be benefits from the proximity to downtown.

The big thing for me with regard to the West Village site is the integration of the LRT into the site itself. One of the things that I really like about the Edmonton site is how the LRT runs right through it (although the actual integration could be better worked out. I have no issues with walking a few blocks from the LRT to the stadium as would be the case with the Railtown site. But the potential to have the Sunalta LRT factor directly into the stadium is pretty amazing. It would literally be a short skip to the stadium. If a station head (access facilities) was built on the west side of the existing Sunalta station you would be able to directly access the station itself which would be pretty cool. Even if Bow Trail were to run under the stadium as Expo Blvd does in Vancouver it would save costs that could be associated with tunneling.

I'll get off this horse ... but not before pointing out that both Railtown and West village are two small for a comprehensive complex that Ken King has been talking about.

Yeah, it could work if bow trail were underground but, uhh, you'd do that instead of two LRT lines? LOLQ

speedog
Oct 4, 2014, 2:25 PM
Cough

THERE WILL NOT BE AN ARENA IN FIREPARK. GET OVER IT ALREADY.
So cough up your opinion as to where this new supposed complex will be going if you're so sure it isn't going to be Firepark - you seem to be quite adept at shooting other people's ideas down.

Like I said earlier, what about the McMahon lands - an arena and stadium and fieldhouse could all fit there nicely and be built without demolishing the existing stadium - this would leave a lot of land available to be redeveloped as well. Could tie in a new arena to the two existing arenas as well. got hotels and some restaurants nearby and Brentwood TOD is not that far away as well...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5040260/pics/4201.png