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
Oct 4, 2014, 3:07 PM
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

McEwan Hall would be soooo cool to go to before and after the games!

Joking aside, I agree that it is possible there, and for the same reason, it would be more than possible at Firepark, though including MaxBell you could do better, and the LRT there is better positioned, and access to higher bandwidth roads is easier.

Brentwood is far, but if you mean accessible by LRT than that can be said for virtually and LRT anchored ToD.

The Fisher Account
Oct 4, 2014, 3:33 PM
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.


I've said it numerous times. The new entertainment complex will be going in the West Village.

speedog
Oct 4, 2014, 3:59 PM
I've said it numerous times. The new entertainment complex will be going in the West Village.
Actually it would appear that you've never said it in these forums - certainly not in this thread.

Now I could be wrong and you're more than welcome to post up links to specific posts to prove such, but it just doesn't appear that you've ever said the new entertainment complex will be going in the West Village.

suburbia
Oct 5, 2014, 4:19 PM
Calgary's new comprehensive sports, entertainment, cultural, residential and business district:

http://www.albertaonrecord.ca/uploads/r/glenbow-archives/0/3/032db7c35aab3afb0b4f5c23c2f6dd5497fd19343e83128ed80fd9910696323e/na-5654-219_141.jpg

Firepark (1.8M sf) can be seen on the far side of memorial, max bell lands (0.5M sf) mid-picture, with LRT in-between. Mouth of 17ave SE just out of frame in the bottom right, location of new performance space. All 2.3M sf with magnificent views of the river valley, downtown and the mountains. Exceptional access to roads and public transit, both LRT and buses.

Glenbow archives photo details:

Title and statement of responsibility area
Title proper
Aerial view of Max Bell Arena, Calgary, Alberta.
Level of description
Item
Repository
Glenbow Archives
Reference code
GLEN glen-3237-is-glen-1769
Dates of creation area
Date(s)

October 2, 1986 (Creation)

Creator
Hall, Jim

Archival description area
Name of creator
Hall, Jim

UofC.engineer
Oct 5, 2014, 4:44 PM
Stampede Park is such a waste of desirable inner city land. 355 days per year, it is a wasteland of parking. At the very least, the grandstand and entire riverfront should be redeveloped. Maybe it would make sense to move the midway and rodeo events somewhere like Fire Park and redevelop the entire parking area. The Big 4 site would be ideal for an arena with an extension of 17th Ave linking up to Olympic way/4 St.

I 100% agree with you!

But this will never happen in my life time.

speedog
Oct 5, 2014, 4:48 PM
On a side note, does anyone one know why there's an underpass already built from the EB-NB Memorial-Barlow off-ramp directly under Memorial into the east side of Firepark- it's been there for years and never been used to the best of my recollection. it's about 135 meters west on the Barlow/Memorial overpass.

Spring2008
Oct 5, 2014, 5:25 PM
Surrounded by single family and industrial - wonderful

Calgary's new comprehensive sports, entertainment, cultural, residential and business district:

http://www.albertaonrecord.ca/uploads/r/glenbow-archives/0/3/032db7c35aab3afb0b4f5c23c2f6dd5497fd19343e83128ed80fd9910696323e/na-5654-219_141.jpg

Firepark (1.8M sf) can be seen on the far side of memorial, max bell lands (0.5M sf) mid-picture, with LRT in-between. Mouth of 17ave SE just out of frame in the bottom right, location of new performance space. All 2.3M sf with magnificent views of the river valley, downtown and the mountains. Exceptional access to roads and public transit, both LRT and buses.

Glenbow archives photo details:

The Fisher Account
Oct 5, 2014, 10:48 PM
The Big 4 would be a great idea!

The Flames owners can't wait to bend over and let the Stampede board continue to give it to them from behind and hand over millions in future profits on parking, concessions, etc just because you think it might be a better use of space!

:runaway:

There's a reason why the Flames ownership group is taking their ball home and telling the Stampede to pound sand. Money.

Me&You
Oct 5, 2014, 11:51 PM
The Big 4 would be a great idea!

The Flames owners can't wait to bend over and let the Stampede board continue to give it to them from behind and hand over millions in future profits on parking, concessions, etc just because you think it might be a better use of space!

:runaway:

There's a reason why the Flames ownership group is taking their ball home and telling the Stampede to pound sand. Money.

All that aside, my ideal / dream scenario would be for the new arena to be built on the site of the Big 4 with a trenched / tunnelled LRT running where it is now, parallel to Macleod and additional mixed use developments popping up all along Macleod and down 17th... One can dream...

suburbia
Oct 6, 2014, 4:53 AM
Calgary's new comprehensive sports, entertainment, cultural, residential and business district:

http://www.albertaonrecord.ca/uploads/r/glenbow-archives/0/3/032db7c35aab3afb0b4f5c23c2f6dd5497fd19343e83128ed80fd9910696323e/na-5654-219_141.jpg

Firepark (1.8M sf) can be seen on the far side of memorial, max bell lands (0.5M sf) mid-picture, with LRT in-between. Mouth of 17ave SE just out of frame in the bottom right, location of new performance space. All 2.3M sf with magnificent views of the river valley, downtown and the mountains. Exceptional access to roads and public transit, both LRT and buses.

Epic, and with a view!

My current office view - Golder's building 6th floor as the sun starts to light the buildings downtown. Just have to live with the Firepark tower somewhere in the picture.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7324/10281070654_72f5b3fe34_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferreth/10281070654/)
Calgary Skyline Early Sunrise at Work ip1040 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferreth/10281070654/) by ferreth (http://www.flickr.com/people/ferreth/), on Flickr

lineman
Oct 6, 2014, 5:19 AM
On a side note, does anyone one know why there's an underpass already built from the EB-NB Memorial-Barlow off-ramp directly under Memorial into the east side of Firepark- it's been there for years and never been used to the best of my recollection. it's about 135 meters west on the Barlow/Memorial overpass.

It was built to provide access to the Firestone plant. By the time it was done, the plant was shuttered.

mykalberta
Oct 6, 2014, 2:46 PM
Long time reader first time poster.

Here are my relatively un-educated thoughts on the new arena.

I think there are 5 possibilities (all previously mentioned) (rated in order in which I think are most likely) although I would be shocked if its any locaton other than the

Before I give a synopsis of the ordering I think its important to note a few likely facts.

1 - The Flames will receive no direct money (ala Edmonton) so any value they extract from the site has to be either indirect funding or through their own means. Because of this the City will have much smaller input as to where this stadium goes from "Best for the City" PoV

2 - There have been alot of rumor/reports that the flames season and box ticket base is 80+ in the NW and SW portion of the City. I dont think this point is lost on the ownership group

3 - The state of Calgary convention centre facilities is atrocious

Here are my guesses/reasons as to where it will go.

1 - West Village (80% chance).

While I like the Citys prelim area plan for the area, I dont see it ever coming to fruition given the funding required to remediate the land. The City used future tax revenues from Calgarys largest skyscraper to fund the EV improvments. Given the distance to the river I dont see a building like that being able to fund the requirements for the WV plan.

If it doesnt go here, then I think this area sits as it is for another 30+ years. Also from an urbanist perspective I think Calgary benefits from a constrainted downtown size, everything is more concentraded in less blocks. Look to Edmonton to see what happends when your downtown has no real boundires.

Other forums have had people that have stated that none of the buisnesses in the WV actually own the land, they lease the land so aquiring the land shouldnt be to cost prohibitive (if they havent already acquired it).

I think the Flames plan is for a combo arena/stadium (very similar to what was leaked) that would connect so you could use for trade shows etc. If I was a betting man I would bet that the Flames already have Casino permit from the province waiting as well as an expansion MLS franchise.

I think the way the Flames extract value is by having public money pay for the remediation of the site and doing some public boardwalk improvments next to the river and pedestrian access to the downtown and re-doing 14th street interchange.

I disagree with some that indicate this will also come with a Bow/Crowchild upgrade. I dont think that will ever get "fixed" the way people want. The most I see is maye removing the exit from Crow to Memorial East and a few other slight improvments.

2 - Firepark

I think Firepark is the best from an Urbanist PoV and a "what could happen" but I dont think you invest 1 Bill in "what could happen". Especially when the majority of your patrons are SW and NW. I think the City and Urbanists would prefer this since arena districts are notorious blackholes and might as well put it in Firepark since nothink is likely to go there for 50+ years.

3 - McMahan

Lots of space but I dont see the Uni budging as they likely want to keep that for future expansion

4 - Railtown

I dont see the Flames wanting Railtown, to small to what they want to do and too and close the Stampede and no reason to give them any business if they arent willing to come to the table and offer some money.

I also see this as the lowest ranking transit. To walk to the existing lines from this location would be a 5 block walk, and the new line likely wont happen for 20 years and so I think that reasoning is mute

5 - Stampede - if no information had been release on various other forums and sources I would say this should be the number 1 choice given the differing lots that exist.

We could all be fooled and it will go here, likely the #1 or 2 choice for the City but I dont see it happning because of the greed and lack of vision of the Stampede board. Heck if you were to mabye have some creativity in design you might even beable to house the stampede facilities in the new football stadium and then the Stampede could demolish the grandstand and re-develop it.

fusili
Oct 6, 2014, 3:39 PM
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.

I've touched a nerve.....

Innersoul1
Oct 6, 2014, 4:40 PM
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

King did refer to a Field House in the radio interview. However, I reckon that the Flames organization tying themselves to the field house has a lot to do with posturing themselves and the notion of giving back to the community. The question is: why would the Flames be involved in a facility that already has a location set out and a rough funding model in place? If the field house were to be inclusive of a facility that includes an arena and stadium the field house would be the first item cut. Plus it has an enormous footprint.

How about this: The Flames build a complex that is comprised of stadium, arena, some convention space and entertainment district. They help to fund the field house under the Flames name, much like the Calgary Flames Arenas. Cutting out the field house from the equation opens up a number of options with regard to location and space requirements.

Bow Trail doesn't even need to go underground. It could just pass under part of the facility, above ground. Check the link and you will have a better idea of what I mean.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=expo+boulevard+vancouver&ll=49.277871,-123.112063&spn=0.013033,0.033023&client=safari&oe=UTF-8&hnear=Expo+Blvd,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=49.277751,-123.112458&panoid=h3_ZVnnw4jSJWt3y1KdX9g&cbp=12,240.65,,0,15.92

bt04ku
Oct 6, 2014, 4:51 PM
Epic, and with a view!

Yeah, the view of the side of an arena will be totally epic.

Innersoul1
Oct 6, 2014, 4:52 PM
googspecial. Have a peek at the Century Link Field in Seattle along with the Events centre between the stadium and Safeco Field. How would that fit into the discussed sites? See the link here:
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=CenturyLink+Field,+Occidental+Avenue+South,+Seattle,+WA,+United+States&hl=en&ll=47.594306,-122.330275&spn=0.006736,0.016512&sll=49.277745,-123.11245&sspn=0.013089,0.033023&oq=Century+Link&t=h&z=17

Additionally, maybe we are getting the wrong impression about the field house. The Seahawks have a practice facility (field house) in Renton that includes a full sized field along with fitness facitlites. Could something like this be more along the lines of what the Flames are looking at?
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Seahawks+Way,+Renton,+WA,+United+States&hl=en&ll=47.534117,-122.197634&spn=0.006744,0.016512&sll=47.593669,-122.333236&sspn=0.006765,0.016512&oq=Seahawk&t=h&hnear=Seahawks+Way,+Renton,+Washington+98056,+United+States&z=17

It's 200,000 square feet and you can find a virtual tour at the bottom of this page:
http://http://www.seahawks.com/team/facilities/vmac.html

Obviously the Flames and the Stampeders don't have the same needs and a NFL team some many of the team facilitites could be used for community facilities. I have toured the building and it's something amazing.

Surrealplaces
Oct 6, 2014, 5:02 PM
I think West Village is the most likely spot. I wouldn't be surprised if the plan is to build an arena/stadium combo and involve public funding in an overall plan. West Village makes the most sense for that type of plan.

I'm not a huge fan of the Firestone location, but one thing that would be kind of cool would be an arena with a large glass wall overlooking downtown and the city. :cool:

nick.flood
Oct 6, 2014, 5:19 PM
delete

suburbia
Oct 6, 2014, 6:49 PM
This is the view I prefer my hockey arena to have.
http://flamesnation.ca/uploads/Image/vernon3.jpg
Source: Flamesnation.ca (http://flamesnation.ca/uploads/Image/vernon3.jpg)

It was so long ago, some people don't even realize that the Flames ever won the cup.

suburbia
Oct 6, 2014, 6:55 PM
Yeah, the view of the side of an arena will be totally epic.

Another bozo comment from someone who doesn't comprehend that a mixed use development includes commercial, residential, cultural and entertainment.

I think the Flames plan is for a combo arena/stadium (very similar to what was leaked) that would connect so you could use for trade shows etc. If I was a betting man I would bet that the Flames already have Casino permit from the province waiting as well as an expansion MLS franchise.

I agree with your thinking here, and thus a huge factor becomes the reality that neither Railtown or West Village have enough space.

I think Firepark is the best from an Urbanist PoV and a "what could happen" but I dont think you invest 1 Bill in "what could happen". Especially when the majority of your patrons are SW and NW. I think the City and Urbanists would prefer this since arena districts are notorious blackholes and might as well put it in Firepark since nothink is likely to go there for 50+ years.


I'm curious about your sources regarding "majority of your patrons are SW and NW"?

Given that there will likely not be much or any public funds, the value in putting up a facility or set of facilities will be development potential around them, and there being enough space for that. If the lot identified doesn't have enough space around it, there is nothing for the owners to recover their money on. The more cheapish space they can elevate around it, the better the business case for doing this. A massive issue in much of the analysis thus far is people not understanding that the bigger picture play is making money. That can't happen when wedged in within a highly developed area, as other people make the gravy in that scenario. Edmonton is a good example, the huge difference being Edmonton being three decades behind Calgary from a densification perspective in the core.

Ice Cream Man
Oct 6, 2014, 8:24 PM
I'd start buying land in Sunalta right now if I could.

suburbia
Oct 6, 2014, 8:55 PM
I'd start buying land in Sunalta right now if I could.

That goes without saying. Arena, stadium, or not, Sunalta is a great play.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 6, 2014, 9:05 PM
Still gentrifying, still room for uplift was my thought about Sunalta. I welcome any development that will juice my property value.

bt04ku
Oct 6, 2014, 11:28 PM
Another bozo comment from someone who doesn't comprehend that a mixed use development includes commercial, residential, cultural and entertainment.


The Flames are only in one of these businesses which has a little carry over into another, but they aren't going to get into the condo and office development game as they're already poised to be close to a billion dollars on the entertainment side alone, the office and residential developers aren't going to take that big a risk on something so unproven with that much of a scope. Yes Firepark (and Max Bell) is three times as big, but that only matters if you're actually able and willing to develop that much of an area. East Village is larger than this and look at the amount of time and investment it has taken to get that going, and that is prime real estate being buoyed on by municipal money.

Yes these areas need all of those things to be successful, but that is why we so often see these become black holes: one of them is rushed in with the hope the rest will follow, but then the risk just isn't worth it. Olympic bids are most notorious for it due to the timelines required to build the 'entertainment' but the rest will take years to come, if ever.

If the Flames want to make their money back the fastest, they don't need an area that is big enough to support more than just the entertainment side of it, let others worry about the rest. West Village can do it, Railtown can definitely do it, where the people will already be there both day and night to support the entertainment district. Firepark requires them to get it all built to support itself all at once, which will require far more money than anybody has every put into anything, anywhere in this city before.

Ironically, the only thing that would make a place like Firepark feasible is for public money to make it so because it is the only way to mitigate the risk, while private money would make the safe bet at just put it downtown, which is where all indications are that it is going (those indications being the higher ups in the Flames organization saying that is where it's going), with even more rumours pointing towards the West Village (the friends of friends saying the Flames owners are buying up property on the west side of downtown).

suburbia
Oct 7, 2014, 12:16 AM
The Flames are only in one of these businesses which has a little carry over into another, but they aren't going to get into the condo and office development game as they're already poised to be close to a billion dollars on the entertainment side alone ...

Correct ... and that's why master-planned areas bring in other developers for specific projects. I'm sorry to have made the assumption you knew this already - it is what is happening in East Village and will happen on West Campus also. The overall developer sells pieces to the other groups, takes a big chunk of the profit at that stage. The implication is that they would be going in with several hands shaken already. The business and development network of the Flames is substantial, directly and via their owners.

Luk_o
Oct 7, 2014, 12:24 AM
I would bet that the Flames already have Casino permit from the province waiting as well as an expansion MLS franchise.

I would bet that an expansion MLS franchise in Calgary is definitely not on the radar for the Flames Group at this time (or for MLS). I'm a huge soccer fan and I wish it was, but Calgary has not yet shown close the support or current team needed for an MLS expansion. Maybe an NASL team down the road, but even this seems years down the line. Our current highest level club in the city (Foothills FC) plays the reserves of Edmonton's NASL team, who would be much more likely to gain a promotion to MLS in the near(ish) future. Very unlikely for the MLS to just grant Calgary a franchise opportunity without a current semi-pro team established w/ fan base when there are far more suitable N.American cities in line to do so. Also, MLS has gained significant growth, success and notoriety over the recent years, an MLS franchise expansion fee alone is now ~$70Mil up from $30Mil in 2009 (and will continue to grow), and this is just a fraction of the cost required to establish this team in a new market. Highly doubt they have this cost set aside at this time when their focus is on the new facilities.

bt04ku
Oct 7, 2014, 12:44 AM
I would bet that an expansion MLS franchise in Calgary is definitely not on the radar for the Flames Group at this time (or for MLS). I'm a huge soccer fan and I wish it was, but Calgary has not yet shown close the support or current team needed for an MLS expansion. Maybe an NASL team down the road, but even this seems years down the line. Our current highest level club in the city (Foothills FC) plays the reserves of Edmonton's NASL team, who would be much more likely to gain a promotion to MLS in the near(ish) future. Very unlikely for the MLS to just grant Calgary a franchise opportunity without a current semi-pro team established w/ fan base when there are far more suitable N.American cities in line to do so. Also, MLS has gained significant growth, success and notoriety over the recent years, an MLS franchise expansion fee alone is now ~$70Mil up from $30Mil in 2009 (and will continue to grow), and this is just a fraction of the cost required to establish this team in a new market. Highly doubt they have this cost set aside at this time when their focus is on the new facilities.

I don't think MLS is rushing to move past what will be their next wave of expansion (4 teams in the next 5 years IIRC) and Edmonton isn't even on that list so you are looking at a very long timeline for any MLS team and that doesn't take into account all the other American markets that would also be potential targets by then.

Innersoul1
Oct 7, 2014, 1:07 AM
The Flames are only in one of these businesses which has a little carry over into another, but they aren't going to get into the condo and office development game as they're already poised to be close to a billion dollars on the entertainment side alone, the office and residential developers aren't going to take that big a risk on something so unproven with that much of a scope. Yes Firepark (and Max Bell) is three times as big, but that only matters if you're actually able and willing to develop that much of an area. East Village is larger than this and look at the amount of time and investment it has taken to get that going, and that is prime real estate being buoyed on by municipal money.

Yes these areas need all of those things to be successful, but that is why we so often see these become black holes: one of them is rushed in with the hope the rest will follow, but then the risk just isn't worth it. Olympic bids are most notorious for it due to the timelines required to build the 'entertainment' but the rest will take years to come, if ever.

If the Flames want to make their money back the fastest, they don't need an area that is big enough to support more than just the entertainment side of it, let others worry about the rest. West Village can do it, Railtown can definitely do it, where the people will already be there both day and night to support the entertainment district. Firepark requires them to get it all built to support itself all at once, which will require far more money than anybody has every put into anything, anywhere in this city before.

Ironically, the only thing that would make a place like Firepark feasible is for public money to make it so because it is the only way to mitigate the risk, while private money would make the safe bet at just put it downtown, which is where all indications are that it is going (those indications being the higher ups in the Flames organization saying that is where it's going), with even more rumours pointing towards the West Village (the friends of friends saying the Flames owners are buying up property on the west side of downtown).

Really well said.

I would bet that an expansion MLS franchise in Calgary is definitely not on the radar for the Flames Group at this time (or for MLS). I'm a huge soccer fan and I wish it was, but Calgary has not yet shown close the support or current team needed for an MLS expansion. Maybe an NASL team down the road, but even this seems years down the line. Our current highest level club in the city (Foothills FC) plays the reserves of Edmonton's NASL team, who would be much more likely to gain a promotion to MLS in the near(ish) future. Very unlikely for the MLS to just grant Calgary a franchise opportunity without a current semi-pro team established w/ fan base when there are far more suitable N.American cities in line to do so. Also, MLS has gained significant growth, success and notoriety over the recent years, an MLS franchise expansion fee alone is now ~$70Mil up from $30Mil in 2009 (and will continue to grow), and this is just a fraction of the cost required to establish this team in a new market. Highly doubt they have this cost set aside at this time when their focus is on the new facilities.

I am glad you pointed that out. MLS in Calgary is a HUGE pipe dream. There are too many markets in the US that would have much more competitive bids than Calgary at this point.

bt04ku
Oct 7, 2014, 1:57 AM
Correct ... and that's why master-planned areas bring in other developers for specific projects. I'm sorry to have made the assumption you knew this already - it is what is happening in East Village and will happen on West Campus also. The overall developer sells pieces to the other groups, takes a big chunk of the profit at that stage. The implication is that they would be going in with several hands shaken already. The business and development network of the Flames is substantial, directly and via their owners.

Well, no. The West Campus Trust will lease out the lands, which they got for free, and collect money when no investment was needed. East Village is a city-owned subsidiary that gets to spend property tax revenue to spur development to generate more property tax revenue, an envious gig for any business considering the building that contributes to that fund.


The Flames district requires a land purchase and their own investment of, based on the cost of the most recent arena projects, $400M into an arena alone. That means a lot of sales in order to start seeing a profit and they aren't getting a guaranteed revenue stream in return. You're suggesting that the team is better to take on all the risk of a mega project that is usually accompanied by massive public investment (i.e. Glendale building an arena for a team owner, the city of Kansas City building an arena as part of an entertainment district, the city of Edmonton committing a lot of investment in the EAD, the county of Franklin building an arena and the city of Columbus investing in an arena district, LA county giving money, land and other deals for the development of L.A. Live just to rehash a few) in a riskier spot than a sure bet just because it is bigger?

Firepark is more far more risk with more debt and the need for more immediate development around it that the West Village or Railtown require.

Ice Cream Man
Oct 7, 2014, 5:47 AM
I would bet that an expansion MLS franchise in Calgary is definitely not on the radar for the Flames Group at this time (or for MLS).

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

mykalberta
Oct 7, 2014, 1:40 PM
I would bet that an expansion MLS franchise in Calgary is definitely not on the radar for the Flames Group at this time (or for MLS). I'm a huge soccer fan and I wish it was, but Calgary has not yet shown close the support or current team needed for an MLS expansion. Maybe an NASL team down the road, but even this seems years down the line. Our current highest level club in the city (Foothills FC) plays the reserves of Edmonton's NASL team, who would be much more likely to gain a promotion to MLS in the near(ish) future. Very unlikely for the MLS to just grant Calgary a franchise opportunity without a current semi-pro team established w/ fan base when there are far more suitable N.American cities in line to do so. Also, MLS has gained significant growth, success and notoriety over the recent years, an MLS franchise expansion fee alone is now ~$70Mil up from $30Mil in 2009 (and will continue to grow), and this is just a fraction of the cost required to establish this team in a new market. Highly doubt they have this cost set aside at this time when their focus is on the new facilities.

I would argue there is no logcal reason to build a Football stadium without public money or "Olympic" money unless you can start to fill those bookings with something else.

I have heard the argument about prior support but supporting a 5th tier team with a terrible event experience isnt the same as a top tier team. I also dont remember any Lacrosse support for Calgary before NLS arrived. And Lacrosse is played by less people than Soccer. Admittedly NLS is a 5th tier sport but MLS would be a great offering at about the same level the Stampeders are.

Given the Salary range for MLS what would the ticket range in Calgary be, 50 max? I agree on the setup and expansion costs but I can only see the ownership group investing in a new football stadium it it can be really utilized.

And with the influx of "non-prairie" folk into Calgary in which the Flames are too expensive, Stampeders isnt the NFL, and WHL and NLS are a joke then I think an MLS team fits in nicely.

The Fisher Account
Oct 7, 2014, 3:01 PM
If the Flames group is going to be investing $1B in a new facility and only relying on 10-15 CFL home games a season, you can be damn sure that MLS is on their radar.

Wooster
Oct 7, 2014, 3:22 PM
If the Flames group is going to be investing $1B in a new facility and only relying on 10-15 CFL home games a season, you can be damn sure that MLS is on their radar.

No, you can be sure it's meant to be a multi-use facility used by the general public for most of the year - probably doubling as a field house.

Innersoul1
Oct 7, 2014, 4:04 PM
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

It might be on their radar, as in they know it's over the Pacific. But given that this is a sports group they are realistic about their chances of getting and MLS Franchise.

I would argue there is no logcal reason to build a Football stadium without public money or "Olympic" money unless you can start to fill those bookings with something else.

I have heard the argument about prior support but supporting a 5th tier team with a terrible event experience isnt the same as a top tier team. I also dont remember any Lacrosse support for Calgary before NLS arrived. And Lacrosse is played by less people than Soccer. Admittedly NLS is a 5th tier sport but MLS would be a great offering at about the same level the Stampeders are.

Given the Salary range for MLS what would the ticket range in Calgary be, 50 max? I agree on the setup and expansion costs but I can only see the ownership group investing in a new football stadium it it can be really utilized.

And with the influx of "non-prairie" folk into Calgary in which the Flames are too expensive, Stampeders isnt the NFL, and WHL and NLS are a joke then I think an MLS team fits in nicely.

The logical reason for building a stadium without public monies is to advance the franchise and improve the fan experience. While I agree with you that it is much easier to accomplish with public monies the organization is going to have to think outside of the box to do this. This might be why they have talked about including a field house. We aren't going to see an Olympic bid any time soon and given the McMahon is the oldest stadium in the league there is certainly the motivation to improve the facility and fan experience.

To accommodate the costs of the MLS franchise and the player salaries tickets are still going to be somewhat pricey. In Toronto, single game tickets range from $50-$160. $470 for half seasons tickets and just over $1000 for seasons tickets. In Vancouver it's $25-$150. Seasons tickets start at $325, but keep in mind that they have a MUCH larger stadium.

If the Flames group is going to be investing $1B in a new facility and only relying on 10-15 CFL home games a season, you can be damn sure that MLS is on their radar.

Sure, the idea of having an MLS team is great as a concept and maybe on paper. But you really need to delve into what it takes to get an MLS Franchise. This isn't just about saying that you want a team, have the money and are willing to build a stadium. It's all down to the dollars and cents. Keep in mind that David Beckham is on the ownership group trying to bring MLS to Florida and can't get it done because they can't get a decent stadium figured out. The vetting process is pretty specific. You need to have the stadium, but most importantly you need to have a fan base and the proven record of support. We don't have it. None of our soccer franchises thus far have been well supported. As I have said before much of this weighs on two factors: weather and stadium. MLS seasons run from March to October. Given our weather those early games in March and late ones in October can be nightmarish. Additionally, we have never had a stadium that was comfortable to watch a game in that is conducive to soccer.

Just like the concept of developing a stadium/arena/entertainment complex the process of bringing soccer needs to be thought out. We need to start with lower tier soccer and with that in mind even Edmonton is a step ahead.

No, you can be sure it's meant to be a multi-use facility used by the general public for most of the year - probably doubling as a field house.


I think this model makes a lot of sense and will likely garner much more public support.

Luk_o
Oct 7, 2014, 4:12 PM
If by 'On the Radar' you mean 10 years+ out, then sure - MLS is coming to Cowtown people!

Again - just because the Flames may be looking at this as an oppurtunity, dosen't mean that the MLS is looking at Calgary. You dont just buy an MLS franchise, they need to know that it will be successful there.

Comparing the NLL and MLS isnt even in the same ballpark - especially when comparing the situation with how the Flames aquired the Roughnecks. The Roughnecks were started by a small group of investors, were losing money season after season (even as a successful team) and were on the verge of bankruptcy until the Flames bought them for a bargin. In a league of 9 teams, it is easy to be successful and redneck qualities of the sport makes it easy to maintain a small dedicated fanbase in this market at little expense to the Flames group

Professional Soccer is a completely different beast - the Calgary Boomers of the NASL lasted one season then folded due to poor fan support, the Calgary Mustangs played at McMahon and drew an average of ~1300 people per game at McMahon and folded after three seasons. Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver have had NASL / semi-pro teams with established fan bases for decades prior to getting the nod from the MLS. For fan base to grow in Calgary for soccer, it would have to be a successful team which is much more difficult in the MLS compared to lacrosse - luring top international soccer talent to Alberta in a 24 team league competing with the likes of NY, LA, etc is slightly different than lacrosse.

And just because there are fans of the sport in the city dosent mean it will take off here. There are loads of baseball fans in Calgary and this city cant support a Triple A or Semi pro team after numerous tries. The funny thing is that Okotoks can.

NASL team - yes, this will happen again in the near future. Will it take off and be successful here? I truly hope so. If it dosent, there is no way in hell you will see the MLS in Calgary.

Riise
Oct 7, 2014, 4:17 PM
The vetting process is pretty specific. You need to have the stadium, but most importantly you need to have a fan base and the proven record of support. We don't have it.

We had a lively discussion about this at the pub last week and most peeps thought that Calgary probably has the edge on Edmonton due to the difference in corporate support. The MLS is on an entirely different level than the NASL and they are not connected via a simple flight stairs. Nevertheless, like others have said, there are many markets ahead of both Calgary and Edmonton.

nick.flood
Oct 7, 2014, 4:39 PM
delete

The Fisher Account
Oct 7, 2014, 4:53 PM
Like I said.. 'on the radar'.

Not saying anytime soon, but if they're building a new stadium, they obviously don't want to run into a similar issues that BMO field in Toronto has in trying to re-modify it for a secondary sport at a cost of millions more.

The Flames ownership group is modelling themselves after MLSE to a certain extent, and my assumption would be that additional sports franchise opportunities would be constantly under evaluation and consideration.

Also, I know people want to dismiss this, but Canada is bidding for the World Cup. We certainly want to be a host city if we can.

Spring2008
Oct 7, 2014, 5:49 PM
I'd start buying land in Sunalta right now if I could.

Sounds like West Village is a go.

McMurph
Oct 7, 2014, 6:05 PM
With Norway pulling out of the 2022 winter games bid, leaving only Almaty and Beijing, I'd love to see Calgary jump in with an 11th hour bid. We could have both the new arena and the saddledome up and running for it. I know the chances of that happening are nil (both for local reasons and IOC rules) but it would be for Calgary and for the games. Someone else will have to rescue the 2022 World Cup from Qatar.

As for MLS, however much I'd love to see professional soccer in Calgary I don't think I'd be paying to freeze my ass off through an early season game in March.

tomthumb2
Oct 7, 2014, 6:05 PM
Sounds like West Village is a go.

Is that a fact or your opinion, or just another rumor?

Spring2008
Oct 7, 2014, 6:10 PM
Is that a fact or your opinion, or just another rumor?

Just based on what i'm quoting.

bt04ku
Oct 7, 2014, 6:15 PM
Is that a fact or your opinion, or just another rumor?

The only thing I've heard about the arena that could be considered fact is that it will be downtown, which has been said by Brian Burke on at least a couple occasions but I don't recall if Ken King has said it as well.

The rumours that have been kicking around are all calling for a West Village location (i.e. Flames owners buying up land in the area).

suburbia
Oct 7, 2014, 6:16 PM
No, you can be sure it's meant to be a multi-use facility used by the general public for most of the year - probably doubling as a field house.

Absolutely. Even the arena will be designed with multi-use in mind.

This is precisely why Stampede lands are out of the question. They will be competing against the Stampede, and frankly, that's not a bad thing.

While I prefer Firepark, as it would be better for Calgary overall, I do believe West Villiage is where it will go. It would also meet the requirements of a convention centre type facility, with very close access to the existing larger hotels along the LRT. I'm sure the pitch will be to push out the free fare zone, but not sure of the ramifications of that.

Riise
Oct 7, 2014, 6:58 PM
As for MLS, however much I'd love to see professional soccer in Calgary I don't think I'd be paying to freeze my ass off through an early season game in March.

That's not a weather problem, that's a lack of pre-match pints problem.

Policy Wonk
Oct 7, 2014, 7:50 PM
Professional Soccer is a completely different beast - the Calgary Boomers of the NASL lasted one season then folded due to poor fan support, the Calgary Mustangs played at McMahon and drew an average of ~1300 people per game at McMahon and folded after three seasons. Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver have had NASL / semi-pro teams with established fan bases for decades prior to getting the nod from the MLS. For fan base to grow in Calgary for soccer, it would have to be a successful team which is much more difficult in the MLS compared to lacrosse - luring top international soccer talent to Alberta in a 24 team league competing with the likes of NY, LA, etc is slightly different than lacrosse.

I know someone in this world. Their only reliable "supporters" were adult group homes who would show up as a field trip if were given free tickets. They found that a little discouraging.

93JC
Oct 7, 2014, 10:35 PM
Not saying anytime soon, but if they're building a new stadium, they obviously don't want to run into a similar issues that BMO field in Toronto has in trying to re-modify it for a secondary sport at a cost of millions more.

BMO's problem is that it is a "soccer-specific stadium", which MLS encourages all of its teams to have. It's a colossally stupid idea.

A Canadian football stadium, any Canadian football stadium, can easily accommodate a soccer field. The field is a little narrower than the 'ideal' for soccer, but it's still well within regulation. Length is more than adequate.

If somebody really wanted to have a pro soccer team here there's not a whole hell of a lot stopping them from playing in McMahon. The reason why pro soccer teams don't want to play in McMahon, beyond having nowhere near big enough a fanbase to support the team (and not make McMahon seem like a grossly oversized mausoleum), is the FieldTurf. Up until recently FIFA didn't allow artificial turf; prima donna soccer players still hate playing on it. The old turf from 2006 at McMahon even had soccer field markings on it; they didn't bother when they replaced it all this April.

Also, I know people want to dismiss this, but Canada is bidding for the World Cup. We certainly want to be a host city if we can.

Damn right people are going to dismiss this foolhardy pipe dream. The Canadian Soccer Association is preparing to make a bid. Maybe. Kind of. As soon as they start asking for money reality is going to give the CSA one hell of a bitchslap.

hulkrogan
Oct 7, 2014, 10:50 PM
^There is outrage about the possibility of the Argos playing in BMO.

To say it's stupid not to share is pretty short sited.

The turf requirements are different. Football rips up grass stadiums, and needs a different blend of turf if you go partial synthetic.

You also get the issue of lines when the schedules coincide. MLS wants to get away from this, and rightfully so:
(Notice the soccer boundary line is where the Referee's Assistant is standing... the football lines make it constantly confusing to your brain to follow)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzJCNW6CYAEJ5-i.jpg:large

Innersoul1
Oct 8, 2014, 3:19 AM
The Revs have a specific problem given that they play on a grass field so removing the football lines is really to the detriment of the grass. Whereas in Seattle and Vancouver given that they play on field turf a football game can be played on Saturday, the turf can be scrubbed and soccer can be played on Sunday.

93JC
Oct 8, 2014, 3:41 AM
Yes there is outrage at the possibility of the Argos playing at BMO. I should rephrase myself: it was stupid on Toronto's part to build BMO Field too short to fit a Canadian football field. I totally understand where MLS is coming from when they don't want their teams to share facilities with another team playing another sport. It's in the best interest of the facility owner to be able to fill the stadium with as many pro games as it can. Toronto limiting BMO Field to soccer and only soccer was shortsighted.

The artificial turf requirements aren't really any different between the two sports. Soccer just hasn't been played on turf nearly as long as football has, so there's backlash. I don't know specifically which artificial turf products are used at the current CFL stadiums but I doubt that any of them (save perhaps for Rogers Centre in Toronto and Olympic Stadium in Montreal) aren't up to FIFA snuff.

As for the mish-mash of field markings, I'm sure the football team doesn't like the soccer markings either. That photo looks like Gillette Stadium in Massachusetts; keep in mind that's an American football field, 53-and-a-third yards wide. Canadian fields are 65 yards wide: a little narrower than the 'ideal' soccer field (70-80 yards), but well within the rules. This is what McMahon's turf used to look like. (http://musiccanada.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/mcmahon-stadium1.jpg) Not hard to follow by any means...

hulkrogan
Oct 8, 2014, 2:25 PM
The artificial turf requirements aren't really any different between the two sports. Soccer just hasn't been played on turf nearly as long as football has, so there's backlash. I don't know specifically which artificial turf products are used at the current CFL stadiums but I doubt that any of them (save perhaps for Rogers Centre in Toronto and Olympic Stadium in Montreal) aren't up to FIFA snuff.

The hybrid systems use totally different ratios of natural grass. Football punishes the centre of the field, where as soccer has more even wear overall.

93JC
Oct 8, 2014, 3:46 PM
Hybrid systems are mostly a compromise to appease soccer teams and aren't common in football stadiums anyway (a cursory googling says there are only three installations in the NFL, and that's it), so your point is moot.

Whatever gets built in Calgary will have a full artificial turf field.


EDIT: I did a little more googling; Desso GrassMaster, pretty much the only hybrid turf system in the world, is commonly used European soccer stadiums. It's also used at Mile High in Denver and Lambeau Field in Green Bay; those are the only installations in North America, and I found no sources stating the ratio of artificial grass to natural grass is any different than the soccer installations. It had been previously used at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh and Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia, but was replaced in both stadiums because they were considered the two worst playing surfaces in the NFL.

bt04ku
Oct 8, 2014, 5:36 PM
The hybrid systems use totally different ratios of natural grass. Football punishes the centre of the field, where as soccer has more even wear overall.

Soccer's problem areas are in front of goal, football between the hash marks, rugby is rather random but wherever scrums happen to be. Basically wherever lots of players all congregate a lot.

Innersoul1
Oct 11, 2014, 3:03 AM
If you happen to be chilling at home tonight turn to TSN and catch the Whitecaps v. Sounders match. That's what an MLS crowd should look and sound like.

ZeDgE
Oct 11, 2014, 11:28 PM
If you happen to be chilling at home tonight turn to TSN and catch the Whitecaps v. Sounders match. That's what an MLS crowd should look and sound like.

Century Link is just amazing. I hope to get to a Sounders game there some day. A SeaHawks game would be awesome too. Have been on the tour last time we were there.

Amazing fan support in Seattle and even the whole PNW (Vancouver, Seattle, Portland).

suburbia
Oct 19, 2014, 4:55 AM
I hear Stampeder owners flew out for the Winnipeg game to check out the new stadium there.

The Fisher Account
Oct 19, 2014, 3:01 PM
I hear Stampeder owners flew out for the Winnipeg game to check out the new stadium there.

Or to watch the team they own play a football game?

bt04ku
Oct 19, 2014, 3:54 PM
Probably an opportunity to do both.


EDIT: and see the Flames play.

suburbia
Oct 19, 2014, 4:32 PM
Or to watch the team they own play a football game?

Absolutely - but they don't often fly to watch. Busy dudes.

speedog
Oct 26, 2014, 10:36 PM
Posted over on Calgary Puck forums...
I attended a Stampeder season ticket holder luncheon this past Tuesday. Gordon Norrie, the Stampeder's president was in attendance. During the Q&A session, there was concern from a STH that the Stamps would play second fiddle to the Flames and have to wait for a McMahon replacement until after a new arena would be built. Norrie commented that a joint facility would be built comprised of 3 multipurpose components: an arena, an outdoor facility and what he described as a fieldhouse. He could not comment on location other than it would be "centrally" located. An announcement is very likely to be made by the new year. The Flames are waiting to have the deal done before making it public to avoid the mess the Oiler's made of their arena announcement. I later had the opportunity to question him directly as he ended up sitting at our table. He had no specifics about the configuration/capacity of the new arena. He did say the entire complex would have a footprint of approximately 25 acres. Parking would likely be "vertical" and would be partially underground and partially above ground. I took it to mean parkade style. Not crazy about that idea. He also said that CFL football would be in the fieldhouse and capacity would be in the neighbourhood of 27,000.

So if an indoor football stadium/fieldhouse were to be a reality, then orientation isn't an issue as with most outdoor football stadiums in Canada meaning the west village lands are very feasible for such a complex - orient the fieldhouse/stadium E-W instead of N-S and I can see everything fitting.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 27, 2014, 5:22 AM
If I wasn't on android, myproperty on the city of calgary site has an area measurement tool.

To make the parking eay more economic on the west village, the city could extend the free fare zone of the LRT as part of its non contribution contribution. In rail town, the civic parkade project would contribute to capacity. On the existing stamps stadium site, the city reconfiguring roads would help a fair amount.

Spring2008
Oct 27, 2014, 2:44 PM
Only 27,000 for seating at the new stadium?

O-tacular
Oct 27, 2014, 4:06 PM
Only 27,000 for seating at the new stadium?

What's Mcmahon's current capacity? I thought it was way more than that. Maybe it has lots of corporate boxes or something?

Chadillaccc
Oct 27, 2014, 4:10 PM
McMahon Stadium's current capacity is over 37 000. However, I'd be fine with a 27 000 person stadium if it's indoors. That is a pretty sweet deal, as we'll have the only purpose-built indoor football stadium in the country.

tomthumb2
Oct 27, 2014, 4:17 PM
If the Stamps were in an indoor field house then what would the outdoor component be? Have always thought it would be best to have a permanent roof but only if it has tons of glass like the new stadium being built in Minnesota. Then you don't have it sitting under snow for six months of the year.

*Stardust*
Oct 27, 2014, 4:28 PM
If this thing is gonna be used for 30+ years then the capacity has to be a lot higher than what it is. At this rate Calgary is growing it might end up being a problem

Chadillaccc
Oct 27, 2014, 4:31 PM
I mean, obviously a 50 000 person stadium like BC Place would be preferred. However, I would just be stoked for us to have an indoor stadium at all. That is what Calgary needs.

speedog
Oct 27, 2014, 4:34 PM
Only 27,000 for seating at the new stadium?

Considering average attendance for the 2013 and 2014 seasons has been between 29,000 and 30,000 and that is sold tickets, not actual warm bodies in the stands, then maybe 27,000 is not unrealistic.

But if it's an indoor facility, could that increase bodies in the stands or would it drive some away? There is something about watching a football game outdoors even when it's cold and especially so on a warm summer evening.

Jay in Cowtown
Oct 27, 2014, 5:09 PM
McMahon's capacity is 35'000 and change. It was 37'000 before they built those box suites and club level on both E & W stands.

27'000 is too small for a football stadium here imo. More people would show up to games in this city if we had a stadium with no benches and was climate controlled... guaranteed! 34 - 36'000 I'd say, Edmonton usually gets that in Commonwealth and it doesn't even have a roof... just a better stadium!

Spring2008
Oct 27, 2014, 6:12 PM
27k is def too small, why build a stadium smaller than McMahon?

Surrealplaces
Oct 27, 2014, 6:26 PM
I think if you're going to go through the trouble of building an indoor stadium, 27K seems too small IMO. At least go to ~35K. We get some big crowds at Stamps games in the middle of summer, but come Western Final time, the crowds are actually less. I know weather is part of it, as I know lots of people who have gone to a November game and vowed not to go again because it was too cold.

Considering average attendance for the 2013 and 2014 seasons has been between 29,000 and 30,000 and that is sold tickets, not actual warm bodies in the stands, then maybe 27,000 is not unrealistic.

But if it's an indoor facility, could that increase bodies in the stands or would it drive some away? There is something about watching a football game outdoors even when it's cold and especially so on a warm summer evening.

McMahon's capacity is 35'000 and change. It was 37'000 before they built those box suites and club level on both E & W stands.

27'000 is too small for a football stadium here imo. More people would show up to games in this city if we had a stadium with no benches and was climate controlled... guaranteed! 34 - 36'000 I'd say, Edmonton usually gets that in Commonwealth and it doesn't even have a roof... just a better stadium!

Chadillaccc
Oct 27, 2014, 6:30 PM
If the roof is retractable, indoor is perfect.

I agree that 35 000 would be the perfect size, even 40 000 to get into the big leagues (as far as Canadian stadiums go)...

Luk_o
Oct 27, 2014, 6:30 PM
I mean, obviously a 50 000 person stadium like BC Place would be preferred. However, I would just be stoked for us to have an indoor stadium at all. That is what Calgary needs.

I would way rather keep it an outdoor set-up, just with larger canopies length-wise and higher facilities at the end zones to mitigate the wind. The elements are part of the game plain and simple, permanately taking the game indoors is a huge mistake. Spending less on the roof would allow to spend more on components that actually matter. A 40k capacity with better facilities would be perfect.

Chadillaccc
Oct 27, 2014, 6:32 PM
I guess if they have an extensive and advanced heating system for the seating areas a fully outdoor facility would be okay.

Calgarian
Oct 27, 2014, 7:01 PM
27000 better come with the potential for extra seating to be added for major events.

93JC
Oct 27, 2014, 8:54 PM
Guys, c'mon now, we know this is a tall tale.

The Flames are waiting to have the deal done before making it public to avoid the mess the Oiler's made of their arena announcement.

Right. They don't leak this sort of stuff to season ticket holders at a fan appreciation luncheon.

speedog
Oct 27, 2014, 8:55 PM
I guess if they have an extensive and advanced heating system for the seating areas a fully outdoor facility would be okay.

Oh, you've never been to McMahon on a cold November day, have you? There's not a chance they could build an extensive and advanced heating ystem that would suffice when it's -20C, blowing and snowing.

Calgarian
Oct 27, 2014, 8:56 PM
Guys, c'mon now, we know this is a tall tale.

This is pretty much how I feel about this. Knowing that we will have the Grey Cup and could use a new stadium to try and attract some major international events, I would think they would want to be able to have about 45 000 seats possible.

Innersoul1
Oct 27, 2014, 8:59 PM
I am curious, do any of you know of a precedent for an indoor "field house" that is used as as stadium? Let's put it this way, think about when a ball in punted in football or soccer and consider how high the ball is kicked. At AT&T stadium in Dallas the scoreboard is hung 90ft above the field. and has been hit before. So the roof of the stadium would have to be higher than 90 feet to not only accommodate play but to also not make the building feel boxed in. I am intrigued by this rumour of a field house/stadium. I am having trouble imagining what it might look like. I also agree that 27,000 is a little bit small. It should definitely have space for expansion.

Innersoul1
Oct 27, 2014, 9:06 PM
Yep, let's go with tall tail on this one. I can't even find an example online of a Fieldhouse that could legitimately be used as an indoor stadium and look the part. I would imagine that the 27,000 seats would all have to be retractable. It certainly wouldn't make for a very good feel.

ByeByeBaby
Oct 27, 2014, 9:08 PM
Over the past 5 seasons of regular season games (44 games):

Only 2 games were on days with over 1 mm of precipitation
Only 2 games were on days with a mean temperature below 0
11 games (1/4) were on days with a mean temperature below 10 (which corresponds roughly to high of +15, low of 4)
14 games had attendance below 28,000
16 games had attendance above 30,000 - 12 of these involved Edmonton or Saskatchewan, including the top 11 games

There appears to be very little temperature effect on attendance. The only significant factor I can see is the opponent. (Note that this is true elsewhere - Edmonton averaged 34.3K so far this year, but it's actually 41K vs Calgary/Sask and 30.4K against everybody else.)

I'm not sure how much improved facilities really make a difference; Winnipeg moved from a 60 year old stadium to a brand new one in 2013 and saw attendance increase by 8% (capacity increased by 13%). Great news, except that was last season; this season their attendance is back where it was; slightly lower in fact.

It's also worth noting that the Stamps have been doing very well in recent years; attendance will be higher than the long term average - sometime, there will be a couple of consecutive 5 win seasons and the club will still have to pay to operate the stadium then.

I think if you're going to go through the trouble of building an indoor stadium, 27K seems too small IMO. At least go to ~35K. We get some big crowds at Stamps games in the middle of summer, but come Western Final time, the crowds are actually less. I know weather is part of it, as I know lots of people who have gone to a November game and vowed not to go again because it was too cold.

I suspect it would be more expensive to build a roof than to host Western Final games with very cold temperatures at Sam Boyd Stadium in Las Vegas; it would cost maybe $15M to fly everybody down there and put them up in a hotel for a couple of days.

93JC
Oct 27, 2014, 9:34 PM
I suspect it would be more expensive to build a roof than to host Western Final games with very cold temperatures at Sam Boyd Stadium in Las Vegas; it would cost maybe $15M to fly everybody down there and put them up in a hotel for a couple of days.

:haha:

I kind of like the idea, but it would cost a lot (probably not as much as a new roof for McMahon, but a lot) to expand Sam Boyd to fit a Canadian football field. Sam Boyd is too short.

Tills13
Oct 28, 2014, 12:10 AM
Considering average attendance for the 2013 and 2014 seasons has been between 29,000 and 30,000 and that is sold tickets, not actual warm bodies in the stands, then maybe 27,000 is not unrealistic.

But if it's an indoor facility, could that increase bodies in the stands or would it drive some away? There is something about watching a football game outdoors even when it's cold and especially so on a warm summer evening.

But that's 2014 stats. Calgary is growing and so is our fanbase (by definition), so why build for the now and have to do it again in 20 years?

speedog
Oct 28, 2014, 12:19 AM
But that's 2014 stats. Calgary is growing and so is our fanbase (by definition), so why build for the now and have to do it again in 20 years?

Interestingly enough, the trend in many new arenas has been smaller seating capacities - not sure if it's the same for football stadiums. I agree that 33-35,000 would be better but maybe 27,000 is a nice sweet spot that allows the Flames to push up pricing a bit for Stampeder games - again this is all based upon something that someone posted on the Calgary Puck forums, could all be a bunch of baloney as best as best as any of us knows. I do know that any of the staff I know that work for the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation say they aren't aware of any future plans or maybe they do and they're just not saying.

93JC
Oct 28, 2014, 1:31 AM
Interestingly enough, the trend in many new arenas has been smaller seating capacities

In some cases but not all, and "new arenas" is a pretty small sample size. The capacity of new NHL/NBA arenas definitely peaked between 1980 and 2000, but there have only been four new NHL arenas since 2000 and they're all, save the Prudential Center in Newark vs. the Izod Center in East Rutherford, NJ, bigger than their predecessors.

The real trend is bigger backs-of-house and public 'amenity' spaces: wider concourses, multiple concourses, bigger washrooms, more concessions stands, more in-arena restaurants, more gift shops, bigger gift shops, etc.

It's true that the newest arenas are smaller in capacity than many of the older buildings in the league; of the five newest buildings in the NHL the American Airlines Center (2001) is 14th, Consol Energy Center (2010) is 16th, Prudential Center (2007) is 22nd, Gila River Arena is 26th and MTS Centre (2004) in Winnipeg is 30th. However, the second- and third-smallest buildings are two of the oldest: Nassau Coliseum and Rexall Place, respectively. The oldest, Madison Square Garden (1968), is 20th.

Of the top 10 NHL arenas in seating capacity only two are older than 1994: the Saddledome (1983) and Joe Louis Arena (1979). (5th and 4th oldest.)


Finding an optimum seating capacity has to take into account many, many factors. Cost to build more seats vs. time it would take to recoup the cost of those extra seats is a big one. For example the MTS Centre in Winnipeg probably isn't worth expanding, even though it's a comparatively small 15,000 or so seats. Any more seats would require building a third bowl, which would be "cheap seats". The cheap seats would never pay for themselves.

By contrast the Barclay's Center in Brooklyn, which the Islanders will move into next year, could probably be rearranged to accommodate more "sale-able" seats in future. Right now the official hockey capacity is a shade over 15,000 but there's about 18,000 in the building. Unfortunately it was designed primarily for basketball (as was America West Arena in Phoenix), and the hockey layout isn't centered. The scoreboard hangs over one of the blue lines and one end of the arena is almost entirely "obstructed view" seats. They can probably fix it, and it would probably be worth it, just not right now.

Market plays a huge part too, of course. The Bridgestone Arena in Nashville is a little over 17,000, one of the smaller arenas, but it works pretty well for Nashville. The BB&T Center near Miami is over 19,000, and is frankly far too big for the hockey market in South Florida. Most of the upper bowl is curtained off.

A new Flames arena won't necessarily be smaller in capacity than the Saddledome. It will almost certainly have more luxury boxes and suites, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that the new one is similar to the Saddledome's current 19,289. The Bell Centre in Montreal is over 21,000, and the United Center in Chicago is over 22,000 counting standing room.

bt04ku
Oct 28, 2014, 1:40 AM
In some cases but not all, and "new arenas" is a pretty small sample size. The capacity of new NHL/NBA arenas definitely peaked between 1980 and 2000, but there have only been four new NHL arenas since 2000 and they're all, save the Prudential Center in Newark vs. the Izod Center in East Rutherford, NJ, bigger than their predecessors.

I'd say we would see a case of these arenas increasing in capacity to find the optimum capacity while the new arena here would see a reduction to achieve the optimum capacity.

18-18,500 seems to be the sweet spot. Remember, the last rows of seats cost the most to build and bring in the least amount of revenue.

93JC
Oct 28, 2014, 2:01 AM
If they have no problem selling out 19,289 for ten years straight I doubt a 1,300 seat reduction is "optimum" for Calgary.

Depends on the arena layout, of course. The new one will certainly have a bigger footprint; how much is it worth taking a chunk out of a concourse area to make room for seats?

speedog
Oct 28, 2014, 2:05 AM
If they have no problem selling out 19,289 for ten years straight I doubt a 1,300 seat reduction is "optimum" for Calgary.
Stampeders are selling out at 19,289? Thought the recently re-kindled discussion was around the stadium at a proposed seating capacity of 27,000 and not the arena - looks like there's two disjointed discussions happening.

bt04ku
Oct 28, 2014, 2:29 AM
If they have no problem selling out 19,289 for ten years straight I doubt a 1,300 seat reduction is "optimum" for Calgary.

More suites and club seats come at the expense of seats but you make more $. Especially with how they put the suites in now (generally two rows with the club seats wedged between creating a "3 tier" look.) This really pushes that next tier of seats back to the point where you're really adding to the construction costs by adding those last few seats.

It could very well be 19,000+, it just seems to be very unlikely given the trend on recent arena construction.

The Fisher Account
Oct 28, 2014, 2:53 AM
If they have no problem selling out 19,289 for ten years straight I doubt a 1,300 seat reduction is "optimum" for Calgary.

Depends on the arena layout, of course. The new one will certainly have a bigger footprint; how much is it worth taking a chunk out of a concourse area to make room for seats?

Here's how it works. 300 level seats bring in chump change for the Flames.

Suites bring in lots of money for the Flames.

Arena will be 18,000ish with a huge increase in suites and decrease in 'cheap seats'

VIce
Oct 28, 2014, 2:57 AM
27000 better come with the potential for extra seating to be added for major events.

For an indoor stadium that might not be an easy ask.

93JC
Oct 28, 2014, 5:16 AM
Here's how it works. 300 level seats bring in chump change for the Flames.

Suites bring in lots of money for the Flames.

Arena will be 18,000ish with a huge increase in suites and decrease in 'cheap seats'

I didn't say there would be a "300 level", or "cheap seats", just that seating capacity probably won't go down much, if at all.

I bet the new arena will have a bigger lower bowl (on the order of 9,000 seats vs. 4,800 in the Saddledome), about the same number of total suites (Saddledome has 72) located around the arena at the top of the lower and/or bottom of the upper bowl, and 9,000-10,000 seats in an upper bowl (about the same size as the Saddledome).

I bet the sightlines will be shittier from just about everywhere in the arena, however it'll have enormous concourses by comparison (multi-level concourse for sure, probably and entirely separate club level) and at least double the washrooms and concessions stands.

Book it.

bt04ku
Oct 28, 2014, 1:05 PM
I didn't say there would be a "300 level", or "cheap seats", just that seating capacity probably won't go down much, if at all.

I bet the new arena will have a bigger lower bowl (on the order of 9,000 seats vs. 4,800 in the Saddledome), about the same number of total suites (Saddledome has 72) located around the arena at the top of the lower and/or bottom of the upper bowl, and 9,000-10,000 seats in an upper bowl (about the same size as the Saddledome).

I bet the sightlines will be shittier from just about everywhere in the arena, however it'll have enormous concourses by comparison (multi-level concourse for sure, probably and entirely separate club level) and at least double the washrooms and concessions stands.

Book it.

I'd say the only way the number of suites stays the same is if you have a lot of much bigger suites. You're probably looking at more of a Bell Centre or Air Canada Centre number: ~120. The concourse for these would be shared with the club level that will likely be wedged between the two rows of suites.

Innersoul1
Oct 28, 2014, 4:38 PM
The Barclay Center is certainly a sad venue for hockey. See the off centred configuration here: http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/22464821/photo-barclays-center-hockey-rink-is-not-an-ideal-layout

I have been to a number of NHL rinks. I would still have to say that the Bell Centre in Montreal is a standout. It doesn't have all the extra bells and whistles that are characteristic of many of the newer rinks in the U.S.. But, the seating configuration is second to none. The boxes and executive seating all exist on their own private level (300), the lower bowl is massive with great sightlines and their cheap seats (500 level) are fantastic, all served by escalators too. You can be out of the building from the 500 level in no time.

googspecial
Oct 28, 2014, 5:56 PM
^^

One thing I have to say about Bell Centre is that I found the concourses to be much more narrow compared to other NHL arenas I've been to (Saddledome, MTS Centre & Rexal)

Innersoul1
Oct 28, 2014, 6:20 PM
Yes, certainly the concourses are quite narrow. I would agree with that 100%. It has a lot to do with the site restrictions. But, those smaller concourses are well serviced in terms of vendors and washrooms. Makes the space much more efficient. Additionally getting in and out of the building is quite smooth.

CorporateWhore
Oct 28, 2014, 7:05 PM
In terms of the public space and concourses, my favorites have been the arena in Buffalo (called First Niagara Center at the moment), and Prudential Center in Newark. Both are nice and airy, and easy to get around.

Buffalo was one of the best arena experiences Ive had in general, and that was built in the mid 90s. Just a really nicely designed arena that is easy to get around in, and gives you a great atmosphere inside.

Newark however is way too cavernous inside the arena itself. It feels like a stadium, and doesn't have that close-in feel that I think is great for sports like hockey. But they have a fantastic concourse.

93JC
Oct 28, 2014, 7:15 PM
The Barclay Center is certainly a sad venue for hockey. See the off centred configuration here: http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/22464821/photo-barclays-center-hockey-rink-is-not-an-ideal-layout


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EcJFeEYLPhI/UkS6k2-pPnI/AAAAAAAAWsY/Himo9xUXbew/s1600/frank-20130923103012.jpg

Coldrsx
Oct 28, 2014, 7:16 PM
Oh hi guys:)

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/new%20misc/development/ScreenShot2014-10-28at125549PM_zps4996df95.png
(http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/new%20misc/development/ScreenShot2014-10-28at125549PM_zps4996df95.png)

Spring2008
Oct 28, 2014, 7:30 PM
^It's great you can capture everything going on in the inner-city deadmonton in one shot, but please keep your spam messages for the Canada section.