View Full Version : New Downtown Calgary Arena
Thunderball
Mar 9, 2015, 1:01 AM
Who on earth agrees to own that building and let it sit empty with no tenants?
The Saddledome will be demolished.
Seeing as the City owns the Saddledome, and as the Stampede could conceivably have use for the Saddledome, its not hard to believe that the facility could have some use post-Flames, especially when the Big 4 and Corral are each over 60 years old.
Might make more sense to convert the Saddledome into a smaller venue and to make some creative modifications than to maintain much older buildings with much less cultural and historical relevance. In the end, it might not, but its not a foregone conclusion and as bt04ku pointed out... its most likely the City's call, not the Flames.
McBuilderson
Mar 9, 2015, 1:40 AM
Source was telling me it was include demo of a good size building on the grounds...
I think this may have some validity as the bus barns, which technically aren't on the grounds but are very close would have to be torn down to build the new field house/arena.
If this is the place that the Flames have chosen, it's perfect in my opinion. It would really fill in a dead zone and add so much to the new East Village and Inglewood/Ramsay. :tup:
This would of course mean that the city will have to find land and build a new bus barn for all the buses that will be displaced.
lineman
Mar 9, 2015, 1:55 AM
Spring Gardens is currently undergoing an expansion and another bus barn is planned North of Country Hills blvd west of Deerfoot. I Think they've been looking at moving out of Vic park for some time.
mersar
Mar 9, 2015, 2:01 AM
Spring Gardens is currently undergoing an expansion and another bus barn is planned North of Country Hills blvd west of Deerfoot. I Think they've been looking at moving out of Vic park for some time.
Its been in the works, on and off, for over a decade. They are relocating the operations centre out to Westbrook this year and that leaves very little other than maintenance and storage left there.
I recall a rumor about a proposal that Remington made to the City probably in the early 2000's to buy the site and provide the city with a replacement but the Transportation GM at the time was against it (I believe as the proposed replacement was the same size, and CT wanted something bigger in exchange, or something like that)
freeweed
Mar 9, 2015, 2:39 AM
A render got leaked today. (http://imgur.com/Md1axLY)
Enjoy. :)
You guys are thinking about this all wrong. They are going to demolish the Big 4, then get those Monster movers guys in, drag the Saddledome over to the Big 4 location and build the new arena in the old location. Bam, 2 arenas, minimal downtime and a pretty awesome 2 hour "Monster-moves"special.
At least that's what I'd do.
Hallsy's Toupee
Mar 9, 2015, 3:40 AM
Hey guys, the design for the new arena has been leaked!
p.s. forgive me if this was already posted, just saw this elsewhere.
http://www.sonic1029.com/2015/03/08/calgarys-proposed-new-arena-is-hilarious/
http://davesgeekyideas.com/tag/arena/
http://www.sonic1029.com/files/11026089_799171630118320_7806733425967119603_n.jpg
Trans Canada
Mar 9, 2015, 3:44 AM
Sources say it will be located in East Village next to the new library
http://i.imgur.com/xlM6xLyh.jpg
red_179
Mar 9, 2015, 3:47 AM
Hey guys, the design for the new arena has been leaked!
p.s. forgive me if this was already posted, just saw this elsewhere.
http://www.sonic1029.com/2015/03/08/calgarys-proposed-new-arena-is-hilarious/
http://davesgeekyideas.com/tag/arena/
I've seen this before months and months ago, it was just a mockup someone did. Nothing to get exciting about.
freeweed
Mar 9, 2015, 4:03 AM
I've seen this before months and months ago, it was just a mockup someone did. Nothing to get exciting about.
Yeah, but we successfully trolled at least one Edmonton station into believing it. Mission accomplished.
O-tacular
Mar 9, 2015, 4:10 AM
Yeah, but we successfully trolled at least one Edmonton station into believing it. Mission accomplished.
tHat's awesome! Good work. Someone should say they changed the Edmonton arena design and do something in the shape of a mullet.
craner
Mar 9, 2015, 4:17 AM
Yeah, but we successfully trolled at least one Edmonton station into believing it. Mission accomplished.
Seriously??
That render was taken seriously by an Edmonton radio station?
Hallsy's Toupee
Mar 9, 2015, 4:22 AM
tHat's awesome! Good work. Someone should say they changed the Edmonton arena design and do something in the shape of a mullet.
April 1 is around the corner! :)
Seriously??
That render was taken seriously by an Edmonton radio station?
Sonic 102.9 has understandably declined in on-air talent since Rogers took over. They used to be awesome :(
I found the pic on connect2edmonton website, and most people knew it was a joke right away except for a couple of lowlight members.
craner
Mar 9, 2015, 4:26 AM
^Wow - just wow.
MalcolmTucker
Mar 9, 2015, 3:21 PM
Seeing as the City owns the Saddledome, and as the Stampede could conceivably have use for the Saddledome, its not hard to believe that the facility could have some use post-Flames, especially when the Big 4 and Corral are each over 60 years old.
Might make more sense to convert the Saddledome into a smaller venue and to make some creative modifications than to maintain much older buildings with much less cultural and historical relevance. In the end, it might not, but its not a foregone conclusion and as bt04ku pointed out... its most likely the City's call, not the Flames.
In the 1990s the city estimated costs of keeping the Saddledome going without the Flames at around $5 million a year and that doesn't include the education property tax amount iirc.
Calgarian
Mar 9, 2015, 3:29 PM
I doubt they will tear down the Saddledome, people will make a huge fuss and I bet it will end up being protected. They will just have to find a way to re-purpose it somehow. I wonder if the Stampede will end up owning it, that's probably the best case I can think of, anyone know how much the building is worth, maybe $100 mil?
suburbia
Mar 9, 2015, 4:08 PM
I doubt they will tear down the Saddledome, people will make a huge fuss and I bet it will end up being protected. They will just have to find a way to re-purpose it somehow. I wonder if the Stampede will end up owning it, that's probably the best case I can think of, anyone know how much the building is worth, maybe $100 mil?
I realize we've discussed what it could be converted to previously, but it might be time again to think about that, as at the end of the day, the business case for all of the players needs to make sense.
I could see half of the dome becoming a large amphitheater venue. I wonder if the other half could be used to create a number of meeting rooms of varying sizes, such that in compliment with BMO Centre, it could be more competitive for conventions? I think the real question for any integrated plan involving the BMO would be what happens with the corral. I realize there are several corral-lovers out there, but that building doesn't make sense as it is. The corral location could be interesting for a much needed hotel, and maybe could incorporate some elements of the corral that some people love (I don't know what those could be, but I'm in an appeasing mood).
Anyway - I've strayed from the "new arena" convo a bit here, so I'll stop before getting into trouble.
Hallsy's Toupee
Mar 9, 2015, 4:14 PM
There is a similar discussion in Edmonton re: what to do with Rexall Place once the new arena opens there. Sounds like it will be retained for things like rodeo, lacrosse, smaller concerts and whatnot. Vancouver has retained both Pacific Coliseum and Rogers arena for several decades now, without any fuss. I can see the Saddledome being retained, especially for the Stampede.
suburbia
Mar 9, 2015, 4:37 PM
There is a similar discussion in Edmonton re: what to do with Rexall Place once the new arena opens there. Sounds like it will be retained for things like rodeo, lacrosse, smaller concerts and whatnot. Vancouver has retained both Pacific Coliseum and Rogers arena for several decades now, without any fuss. I can see the Saddledome being retained, especially for the Stampede.
Challenge in Calgary will be that lacrosse and junior hockey will most certainly move to the new venue also (given the ownership structure).
The saddledome usage may need to evolve slightly more drastically than what could work in Edmonton.
The vancouver touchstone is interesting, but might not be a good parallel. At the end of the day, that is a city twice the size of Calgary.
Rodeo type things, however, could be a consideration - especially if both saddledome and corral are in-play as part of a redevelopment. Perhaps the amphitheatre idea for the saddledome could be a 2/3rds or 3/4ths instead of 1/2, so maybe could still do things like that (especially when adding in seat annex)?
bt04ku
Mar 9, 2015, 5:41 PM
A key difference in Vancouver is that the Giants play out of the Coliseum.
That said, Hamilton looks to be losing their AHL team so we could catch a glimpse of what a big, 80s built arena with no anchor tenant can be like (though it will still be the main concert destination).
Innersoul1
Mar 9, 2015, 5:48 PM
There is a similar discussion in Edmonton re: what to do with Rexall Place once the new arena opens there. Sounds like it will be retained for things like rodeo, lacrosse, smaller concerts and whatnot. Vancouver has retained both Pacific Coliseum and Rogers arena for several decades now, without any fuss. I can see the Saddledome being retained, especially for the Stampede.
The question is what the value of the Saddledome is to The Stampede board in the event that the Flames leave the grounds. I would argue that there is a huge value in having a second large arena in a city of our size. The Olympic argument has been made but also in terms of flexibility for hosting events. Keeping the Saddledome and demolishing the Corral seems to make sense to allow for the further expansion of the BMO Centre. Obviously, I see some renovations to optimize the Dome taking place.
Any idea of the value of the replacement of the electrical and refrigeration systems to the Dome post flood?
Innersoul1
Mar 9, 2015, 5:51 PM
Challenge in Calgary will be that lacrosse and junior hockey will most certainly move to the new venue also (given the ownership structure).
The saddledome usage may need to evolve slightly more drastically than what could work in Edmonton.
The vancouver touchstone is interesting, but might not be a good parallel. At the end of the day, that is a city twice the size of Calgary.
Rodeo type things, however, could be a consideration - especially if both saddledome and corral are in-play as part of a redevelopment. Perhaps the amphitheatre idea for the saddledome could be a 2/3rds or 3/4ths instead of 1/2, so maybe could still do things like that (especially when adding in seat annex)?
Keep in mind that the Agrium Centre is essentially the new indoor rodeo venue. Apart from Rodeo Royal, what else might the Dome be used for short of the CFR being moved from Edmonton to Calgary?
suburbia
Mar 9, 2015, 6:10 PM
Keep in mind that the Agrium Centre is essentially the new indoor rodeo venue. Apart from Rodeo Royal, what else might the Dome be used for short of the CFR being moved from Edmonton to Calgary?
Good point. And I'm with you on your prior comment / points also.
Saddledome is a reno and retain, and the short straw is the Corral.
Nudrock
Mar 9, 2015, 6:50 PM
... anyone know how much the building is worth, maybe $100 mil?
I would say that once the Flames, Hitmen and Roughnecks leave, it's worth would be a fraction of your quote.
The Pontiac Silverdome sold for about $600,000 in 2009.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000360831/article/pontiac-silverdome-auction-nets-500000-in-sales
McMurph
Mar 9, 2015, 6:56 PM
Good point. And I'm with you on your prior comment / points also.
Saddledome is a reno and retain, and the short straw is the Corral.
I don't see why the stampede would tear down either. They specialize in large, outdated spaces that stay empty for the majority of the year. And it's not like they don't still have a hell of a lot of empty land that can still be developed. Keep them both and we can start to assemble a History of the Arena district.
The Saddledome isn't the equivalent of Rexall or the Pacific Colliseum. It's an iconic functional building in the centre of a growing and dynamic city and it sits in the middle of the grounds of the hugely successful Stampede. They'll find plenty of uses to warrant its existence. What will be interesting is to see how things play out wrt competition with the new arena for some concerts and competition / combined use for intermittent events like the Brier or WJC.
As for location, I personally think the end of 17th around the Big 4 would be great, but as many have said it's unlikely that the Flames will remain partners or tenants with the Stampede. As for the "sizeable building" that will come down, that could either be the bus barns or the greyhound station. East or west... only Ken King seems to know.
Innersoul1
Mar 9, 2015, 9:30 PM
I don't see why the stampede would tear down either. They specialize in large, outdated spaces that stay empty for the majority of the year. And it's not like they don't still have a hell of a lot of empty land that can still be developed. Keep them both and we can start to assemble a History of the Arena district.
The Saddledome isn't the equivalent of Rexall or the Pacific Colliseum. It's an iconic functional building in the centre of a growing and dynamic city and it sits in the middle of the grounds of the hugely successful Stampede. They'll find plenty of uses to warrant its existence. What will be interesting is to see how things play out wrt competition with the new arena for some concerts and competition / combined use for intermittent events like the Brier or WJC.
As for location, I personally think the end of 17th around the Big 4 would be great, but as many have said it's unlikely that the Flames will remain partners or tenants with the Stampede. As for the "sizeable building" that will come down, that could either be the bus barns or the greyhound station. East or west... only Ken King seems to know.
I think a new arena in combination with the Saddledome makes a compelling case for an event like the WJC. Most cities have been co-hosting the event. Having two large stadia in combination with the MM rink at Winsport makes this city pretty appealing.
As for concerts, as suggested if the Saddledome can do some work and make an optimal ampitheatre style venue it would certainly fill a void in the capacity department for mid sized venues in this city.
Spring2008
Mar 10, 2015, 3:16 AM
The Saddledome's almost as much of a landmark as the Calgary Tower. Sure there's lots of conversion potential if they decide not to keep as arena. Prime location and all.
Doug
Mar 10, 2015, 3:20 AM
If a new arena needs public money to be viable how could the Saddledome even stand a chance?
Spring2008
Mar 10, 2015, 3:30 AM
If a new arena needs public money to be viable how could the Saddledome even stand a chance?
New arenas don't need public funds.
The Saddledome is already an existing structure. A developer would prob purchase for the full value as if completed as a mixed-use building (hotel/retail) for example, then deduct associated costs of conversion. I'm sure many would like to see this building protected.
Coldrsx
Mar 10, 2015, 3:34 AM
Have fun with that.
WhipperSnapper
Mar 10, 2015, 3:49 AM
New arenas don't need public funds.
The Saddledome is already an existing structure. A developer would prob purchase for the full value as if completed as a mixed-use building (hotel/retail) for example, then deduct associated costs of conversion. I'm sure many would like to see this building protected.
An old arena is basically worthless. They even lower property value. Any conversions would be astronomical compared to blowing it up and building new.
Spring2008
Mar 10, 2015, 3:51 AM
An old arena is basically worthless. They even lower property value. Any conversions would be astronomical compared to blowing it up and building new.
I thought there was repurposing of Maple Leaf Gardens to accommodate Loblaws plus other uses?
bt04ku
Mar 10, 2015, 4:27 AM
I thought there was repurposing of Maple Leaf Gardens to accommodate Loblaws plus other uses?
Yup. They originally wanted theatres, but they couldn't change the bleachers as the apparently hold the walls up (or something).
http://www.blogto.com/upload/2010/10/20101019-MLGsideview.jpg
So Ryerson plays hockey there, plus a Ryerson gym, plus some Loblaws stuff.
It's also important to note that part of the sale came the condition (an MLSE condition) that it couldn't compete with the ACC which limited options. Eventually they let Ryerson's hockey team play there but originally blocked the St. Mikes Majors OHL team from moving there.
Seeing as the city owns the Saddledome, this wouldn't be the case with the 'Dome and could directly compete with a new arena (should they want to, for whatever reason).
WhipperSnapper
Mar 10, 2015, 4:41 PM
I thought there was repurposing of Maple Leaf Gardens to accommodate Loblaws plus other uses?
Loblaws picked it up for $12 million which, at the time, was probably 1/3 the value of the property. The facade and I think roof was protected from demolition. They let it rot for several more years until it became a national heritage site and brought Ryerson on board. In turn, the Feds contributed a ton as well as Ryerson's long list of benefactors. It would still be rotting otherwise as the economics for condo towers on top didn't work either.
I can't think of a Ryerson equivalent in downtown Calgary.
RWin
Mar 10, 2015, 4:43 PM
Why is it called the Saddledome? It's not even close to dome shaped.
The Fisher Account
Mar 10, 2015, 4:55 PM
Why is it called the Saddledome? It's not even close to dome shaped.
It's saddle shaped and it's a roof. :uhh:
MalcolmTucker
Mar 10, 2015, 5:13 PM
Why is it called the Saddledome? It's not even close to dome shaped.
The Saddle dome is a sphere bisected by a hyperbolic parabaloid.
ByeByeBaby
Mar 10, 2015, 5:46 PM
Loblaws picked it up for $12 million which, at the time, was probably 1/3 the value of the property. The facade and I think roof was protected from demolition. They let it rot for several more years until it became a national heritage site and brought Ryerson on board. In turn, the Feds contributed a ton as well as Ryerson's long list of benefactors. It would still be rotting otherwise as the economics for condo towers on top didn't work either.
I can't think of a Ryerson equivalent in downtown Calgary.
Maple Leaf Gardens is in the middle of a busy, built-up neighbourhood. You have to walk almost 400m from the Saddledome to get to a piece of dirt that the Stampede doesn't control, and even then there's a lot more "prime development sites" than actual land that's been developed. So a grocery store or any other neighbourhood retail isn't exactly in the cards - as nice as the MLG Loblaw's is, and as much as I'd want it in my neck of the woods.
The Saddledome is 50% larger than MLG, and it's round, so there are places in it that are more than 200 feet from an outside wall and sunlight. That makes a lot of possible reuses difficult.
The way it makes sense to me is if the Saddledome gets redeveloped with multiple uses that are year-round attractions from across the city. One thing is a big ~5000 seat theatre; that's currently something we don't really have (the Corral is in that size range, but it's terrible for anything other than loud guitar music). That takes up half the footprint. The outer edges are easy to figure out; restaurants and bars plus a little tourist shopping on the lower couple of floors, and luxe hotel mega-suites on the upper floors. There's still a decent chunk in the middle that's hard to use; maybe a couple of IMAX theatres and a 1200 seat music venue?
DizzyEdge
Mar 11, 2015, 5:37 AM
http://i.imgur.com/1McVKpa.jpg
Jay in Cowtown
Mar 11, 2015, 2:59 PM
http://i.imgur.com/1McVKpa.jpg
An indoor football stadium?!? Not unless it has a retractable roof!
Calgarian
Mar 11, 2015, 3:31 PM
They probably have to have indoor to avoid noise complaints during concerts and events. I think it should definitely have some sort of retractable roof though.
tomthumb2
Mar 11, 2015, 4:24 PM
I guess my first question would be: who the hell is Richard White?
Wouldn't mind if its fixed roof if it has LOTS of glass like the new stadium in Minnesota (for the Vikings)
MasterG
Mar 11, 2015, 4:32 PM
I guess my first question would be: who the hell is Richard White?
Wouldn't mind if its fixed roof if it has LOTS of glass like the new stadium in Minnesota (for the Vikings)
Richard White is a writer for the Herald that does development & urban exploring commentary about Calgary and other cities. He has some good reads, is pro-urban and explores interesting angles on Calgary's neighbourhoods while simultaneously seeming to not understand cities very well and frequently gets in weird arguments on twitter that are often contradictory to other arguments that he has. He's pretty good, but I wouldn't exactly put my faith in everything he says.
An indoor stadium would be very, very ambitious. Particularly something in the size that the Stamps require and not just a field-house type development. Will be interesting to see how much truth is in it and how they plan to pay for all of this without much hope for public funding.
Can't wait for those plans to be revealed in the next few weeks... or perhaps in 2020 if they keep pushing back the reveal date like the last 5 years.
bigcanuck
Mar 11, 2015, 4:32 PM
I guess my first question would be: who the hell is Richard White?
This is Richard White (http://calgaryherald.com/author/richard-white)
nick.flood
Mar 11, 2015, 5:24 PM
delete
Spring2008
Mar 11, 2015, 5:56 PM
http://i.imgur.com/1McVKpa.jpg
Let's get an NBA & NFL team while we're at it. :tup:
speedog
Mar 11, 2015, 6:38 PM
Let's get an NBA & NFL team while we're at it. :tup:
NBA - wouldn't stand a chance here.
NFL - really? Who do people have such a hate-on for the CFL?
polishavenger
Mar 11, 2015, 6:43 PM
NBA - wouldn't stand a chance here.
NFL - really? Who do people have such a hate-on for the CFL?
agreed, lets show a little patriotism people and get with the CFL:notacrook:
Calgarian
Mar 11, 2015, 6:47 PM
Nah, the concerts that play at Shaw Millenium Park drown out my TV and rattle my coffee table across the river in Hillhurst. I don't think there's any care for sound levels and carry for anything other than the Folk Festival.
Yeah but they have to be quiet by like 9PM or something...
Spring2008
Mar 11, 2015, 6:49 PM
I watch a bit of CFL and NFL, like both, but NFL is superior in every way if you look at is rationally. I'm pretty sure most of their college teams can beat CFL teams.
Too bad about NBA, but you never know.
bigcanuck
Mar 11, 2015, 7:03 PM
I watch a bit of CFL and NFL, like both, but NFL is superior in every way if you look at is rationally. I'm pretty sure most of their college teams can beat CFL teams.
Which rules are you playing by and which field are you playing on. They really are two different games.
craner
Mar 11, 2015, 7:03 PM
(Spring) ^:facepalm: . . . where to start? I'm too tired to fight.
Retractable roof would be the best of both worlds if they can afford it. Given the choice though I would chose no roof over non-retractable roof - and some glass in the roof doesn't cut it for me. Nothing better than watching the Stamps outdoors IMO.
Hope they actually mean it about a reveal in the next few weeks this time, I'm excited to see this!!
McMurph
Mar 11, 2015, 7:06 PM
I watch a bit of CFL and NFL, like both, but NFL is superior in every way if you look at is rationally. I'm pretty sure most of their college teams can beat CFL teams.
Too bad about NBA, but you never know.
By superior in every way are you including in the way they can eat up huge amounts of time doing almost nothing? Personally I've never found any joy out of watching elite athletes stand around and "manage the clock". The athleticism and entertainment package of the NFL is far superior to the CFL -- I'm not so sure the game itself is. The last Super Bowl notwithstanding.
In any case, if it's true that they're planning a covered stadium or retractable roof then I'd think the next professional sport we get here would be soccer. I'd be OK with that. The MLS needs more Canada.
Spring2008
Mar 11, 2015, 7:07 PM
Which rules are you playing by and which field are you playing on. They really are two different games.
Any rules and field you want. Let's start with the Seahawks vs the BC Lions lol
You Need A Thneed
Mar 11, 2015, 7:16 PM
I watch a bit of CFL and NFL, like both, but NFL is superior in every way if you look at is rationally. I'm pretty sure most of their college teams can beat CFL teams.
Too bad about NBA, but you never know.
The question isn't whether the quality of talent is higher in the NFL, of course it is. That doesn't mean that those games are more exciting.
As for college teams beating CFL teams? LOL. The best college teams might have a couple of players better than anyone on a CFL team. The rest of the CFL roster would be so far ahead of the players they were up against, it wouldn't be close. Many CFL players are ex-US College players (some of the best ones), who have had even more time to mature and become stronger, etc. Some of the best college QBs who don't make the NFL come to the CFL, and become third stringers for a few years.
artvandelay
Mar 11, 2015, 7:19 PM
I'm pretty sure most of their college teams can beat CFL teams.
Entirely wrong.
nick.flood
Mar 11, 2015, 8:03 PM
delete
Has there been any discussion about an MLS team in Calgary in the future? I would be all over that.
Doug_Cgy
Mar 11, 2015, 9:01 PM
Has there been any discussion about an MLS team in Calgary in the future? I would be all over that.
I haven't heard any buzz on one, but we also currently don't have adequate infrastructure for one. My guess... this new facility could be the catalyst in starting these discussions though.
Policy Wonk
Mar 11, 2015, 9:02 PM
agreed, lets show a little patriotism people and get with the CFL:notacrook:
Paging Mojo Toronto... please pickup the red courtesy phone.
s211
Mar 11, 2015, 9:50 PM
Is a covered stadium honestly required in Calgary?
Where have all the real men gone, comes to mind.
bt04ku
Mar 11, 2015, 10:04 PM
Is a covered stadium honestly required in Calgary?
Where have all the real men gone, comes to mind.
Covered makes more business sense. Can be a better year-round venue for concerts and the like. But the men have gotten used to great TV coverage from the warm comfort of their home. People may be willing to pay for atmosphere, so long as their fingers aren't too cold to hold their beer.
However a retractable roof is a must IMO. I'm willing to accept the new realities of stadiums, but I am not willing to sell out that much.
As posted on CP, the new Vikings stadium will have a glass roof to allow for natural light. Take this idea, cut the capacity in half for the CFL and allow for the roof to retract, then you have one hell of a stadium.
http://prod.static.vikings.clubs.nfl.com/assets/images/stadium/images/new-image-page-3.jpg
Calgarian
Mar 11, 2015, 10:12 PM
That would be a fantastic stadium to have in Calgary.
CCF
Mar 11, 2015, 10:12 PM
Coming recently from Regina (where the new 'multi-purpose' stadium is under construction) the conversation centred around roof, no roof, or retractable roof. I suspect this will become a common theme within the Calgary context should a new stadium be part of the overall redevelopment.
For the record, Regina's stadium will be exposed to the elements due to costs of implementing a retractable roof.
tomthumb2
Mar 11, 2015, 10:27 PM
From the Flames perspective, having a roof means more ROI. They can use it 12 months a year and I would imagine an MLS team would be an ideal second tenant for them. Plus doesn't soccer start in April or something? Not sure how they'd do that with potential for 3 feet of snow on the ground.
CCF
Mar 11, 2015, 10:40 PM
From the Flames perspective, having a roof means more ROI. They can use it 12 months a year and I would imagine an MLS team would be an ideal second tenant for them. Plus doesn't soccer start in April or something? Not sure how they'd do that with potential for 3 feet of snow on the ground.
This was the same perspective in Regina. That having a roof would allow the facility to be used throughout the year. However, football stadiums aren't as flexible in their ability to host other events (i.e. when else can you draw 40,000 fans?). Concerts, trade shows, other types of entertainment are more suited for a hockey arena at 20,000 or so seats with much better sight lines, atmosphere, etc.
Of course, I also recognize that context plays a part in this discussion. Calgary being a large Canadian city compared to Regina as a mid-sized city. Calgary has obviously more drawing power for events.
I guess really the question comes down to, how often would a football stadium be used for not football related events (10 games per year plus playoffs) and does its use justify the added cost of a retractable roof. I don't have an answer for that, but someone making the decisions certainly will!
tomthumb2
Mar 11, 2015, 10:46 PM
^^^ Good points! When you think about it - not many outdoor concerts and even then, they are usually in the summer time anyway. So for only 9 or 10 football games a year it seems kind of dumb to have a retractable roof. Of course - IF soccer is involved, that could be a game changer.
suburbia
Mar 12, 2015, 4:16 AM
However, football stadiums aren't as flexible in their ability to host other events (i.e. when else can you draw 40,000 fans?). Concerts, trade shows, other types of entertainment are more suited for a hockey arena
Exhibitions / trade shows need raw square footage, and so arenas do not work, but covered football stadiums do.
BC Place:
http://www.sensesinspired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Eat-Vancouver-2014-Trade-Show-01.jpg
http://vancouverscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/EATtradeshow.jpg
If Sunalta Station becomes part of the free fare zone, a flexible facility including stadium and arena could potentially take some of the BMO's bloating away.
Exhibitions / trade shows need raw square footage, and so arenas do not work, but covered football stadiums do.
BC Place:
http://www.sensesinspired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Eat-Vancouver-2014-Trade-Show-01.jpg
http://vancouverscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/EATtradeshow.jpg
If Sunalta Station becomes part of the free fare zone, a flexible facility including stadium and arena could potentially take some of the BMO's bloating away.
That's fair. But how many trade shows or exhibitions are held each year? Are they enough to justify the additional cost of a retractable roof?
Again, I don't know. If the finances work or can be justified, then great - do it. A retractable roof would obviously be a bonus.
roman
Mar 12, 2015, 3:48 PM
That's fair. But how many trade shows or exhibitions are held each year? Are they enough to justify the additional cost of a retractable roof?
Again, I don't know. If the finances work or can be justified, then great - do it. A retractable roof would obviously be a bonus.
I would be happy with a glass covered roof or a retractable roof - anything would be better than what we currently have. I wish they would make the announcement and release the drawings already.
roman
Mar 12, 2015, 3:50 PM
I would be happy with a glass covered roof or a retractable roof - anything would be better than what we currently have. I wish they would make the announcement and release the drawings already.
In my opinion it would be better if the new stadium were enclosed rather than open air - Calgary's weather is just too unpredictable. Hopefully it will be enclosed.
Innersoul1
Mar 12, 2015, 4:03 PM
From the Flames perspective, having a roof means more ROI. They can use it 12 months a year and I would imagine an MLS team would be an ideal second tenant for them. Plus doesn't soccer start in April or something? Not sure how they'd do that with potential for 3 feet of snow on the ground.
The MLS season started last weekend. So it's pretty early. It's pretty funny to watch some of the teams who play on outdoor grass fields as the turf quality is just crap at this time of the year.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a retractable roof as this would make the stadium much more flexible for a variety of uses year round. As a result of limited government funding, economics will really come into play and the Flames will have to glean as much revenue out of this project as possible.
suburbia
Mar 12, 2015, 4:32 PM
That's fair. But how many trade shows or exhibitions are held each year? Are they enough to justify the additional cost of a retractable roof?
Again, I don't know. If the finances work or can be justified, then great - do it. A retractable roof would obviously be a bonus.
Don't have a precise answer, but the BMO centre's schedule is absolutely packed, and Calgary loses many conferences every year because lack of facilities, or no space in a schedule.
Each event of this type is 3-5 days of revenue on average, as the actual event is 1-3 days (and sometimes more). So that means each item is multiple revenue days.
CalgaryAlex
Mar 12, 2015, 4:34 PM
In my opinion it would be better if the new stadium were enclosed rather than open air - Calgary's weather is just too unpredictable. Hopefully it will be enclosed.
Sorry? Unless you are predicting a sudden climate shift towards possible, sudden hurricane conditions upon completion of the stadium, I have no idea what you're talking about.
People have been watching football outside here for over 100 years and weather is an important part of the game. Also, I can't imagine being stuck inside during the beautiful sunny days we often get for summer games. Some people are such wusses these days. Put on some snow pants and a toque and get out there.
SHOFEAR
Mar 12, 2015, 4:36 PM
Indoor football is lame. Come on Calgary, your better than that.
Tills13
Mar 12, 2015, 4:43 PM
I like watching football and I don't like the cold. Sue me.
ByeByeBaby
Mar 12, 2015, 4:49 PM
From the Flames perspective, having a roof means more ROI. They can use it 12 months a year and I would imagine an MLS team would be an ideal second tenant for them. Plus doesn't soccer start in April or something? Not sure how they'd do that with potential for 3 feet of snow on the ground.
MLS? You do realize this is Calgary, right? By the time we get an MLS team in 2040, the owners of whatever new stadium is built will be saying it's too old and small and we need a new one.
McMurph
Mar 12, 2015, 5:29 PM
Enclosed arenas are usually crappy for the spectator. I remember some absolutely miserable times watching the Expos in the Big O. Only part of the misery was the fact that I hate baseball -- I actually enjoyed a game (and a decent beer) a while back in SF. There is a reason why they've been blowing up domes far more often than they've been building them.
That said, I think MLS in Canada could use some sort of climate control, especially in Calgary. They may play through a pretty lousy winter in Europe, but 4 degrees and rain is different than -15 with snow. A retractable roof would be ideal... theoretically. But rarely has one worked on all measures, particularly wrt spectator experience and cost.
The glass approach in Minneapolis is unique. I still think it will be a far cry from the joy of watching a game outside in good weather. I also can't believe that they squeezed 1/2 billion dollars out of the city and state to build it.
HomeInMyShoes
Mar 12, 2015, 5:36 PM
^Part (most) of the problem with the big O and any indoor stadium is it is made for many uses meaning compromises are made that make some events worse than others. That's the definition of multipurpose: sucking at everything in some manner.
It's 14C in Calgary today. I'm thinking MLS in April will always work. :haha:
Ramsayfarian
Mar 12, 2015, 5:56 PM
Covered, uncovered. I don't care either way. They could even go subterranean for all I care. Just as long as the tax payer isn't footing the bill and infrastructure improvements are kept to a dull roar.
Digging for a massive complex might be an easy fix for the contamination issues in the West Village.
O-tacular
Mar 12, 2015, 5:57 PM
I'm not holding my breath for a reveal anytime soon. King keeps saying it's months away and that timeframe turns into years.
O-tacular
Mar 12, 2015, 5:59 PM
Covered, uncovered. I don't care either way. They could even go subterranean for all I care. Just as long as the tax payer isn't footing the bill and infrastructure improvements are kept to a dull roar.
Digging for a massive complex might be an easy fix for the contamination issues in the West Village.
Being a transplant from Mulletville how do you feel about the new Edmonton arena?? The design is great but Katz really fucked the taxpayers IMO.
SHOFEAR
Mar 12, 2015, 6:24 PM
Being a transplant from Mulletville how do you feel about the new Edmonton arena?? The design is great but Katz really fucked the taxpayers IMO.
What's the private vs public cost for other recent arenas?
Quebec city: 200M province, 200M City
hulkrogan
Mar 12, 2015, 6:26 PM
Don't have a precise answer, but the BMO centre's schedule is absolutely packed, and Calgary loses many conferences every year because lack of facilities, or no space in a schedule.
Each event of this type is 3-5 days of revenue on average, as the actual event is 1-3 days (and sometimes more). So that means each item is multiple revenue days.
BC Place has about 2 or 3 conventions and 2 concerts booked between now and November.
That is for a city twice the size.
You build the stadium for football and soccer. No one likes watching games indoors. I bet a sizeable component of the warm summer night stamps crowds drop off if it's indoors.
I'm not wasting a warm summer night indoors, yet the one time I will go watch a CFL game is if it's a nice day and I can watch outside.
MalcolmTucker
Mar 12, 2015, 7:21 PM
What's the private vs public cost for other recent arenas?
Quebec city: 200M province, 200M City
Devils are in the details, with the lease agreement when the city owns the arena, not just the capital financing side.
It is easy to get lost with the upfront.
Ramsayfarian
Mar 12, 2015, 7:52 PM
Being a transplant from Mulletville how do you feel about the new Edmonton arena?? The design is great but Katz really fucked the taxpayers IMO.
Love the design but Katz bent them over. The taxpayer will be paying for it for decades. I would have rather seen the money spent elsewhere.
roman
Mar 12, 2015, 8:26 PM
Sorry? Unless you are predicting a sudden climate shift towards possible, sudden hurricane conditions upon completion of the stadium, I have no idea what you're talking about.
People have been watching football outside here for over 100 years and weather is an important part of the game. Also, I can't imagine being stuck inside during the beautiful sunny days we often get for summer games. Some people are such wusses these days. Put on some snow pants and a toque and get out there.
Sorry, but I am not a fan of sitting out in the cold for several hours even if it is to watch a great football game. I would be ok with a glass roof or retractable roof. In my opinion an open air stadium would set us back and its use would be limited. I know that dollars will dictate, but if they are really planning on building a new stadium, having it enclosed really makes sense to me.
CalgaryAlex
Mar 12, 2015, 8:49 PM
Sorry, but I am not a fan of sitting out in the cold for several hours even if it is to watch a great football game. I would be ok with a glass roof or retractable roof. In my opinion an open air stadium would set us back and its use would be limited. I know that dollars will dictate, but if they are really planning on building a new stadium, having it enclosed really makes sense to me.
You are right that a retractable roof would make the stadium much more useful for a variety of purposes.
I enjoy a good winter game in snowy conditions, but I do also understand that bad weather outdoors is as much as a turn-off as good weather indoors (i just wish that weren't the case). I wonder if they could actually keep up with a policy of uncovered games, regardless of weather, if a retractable roof were installed. Doubt it... a few low-attendance games and the roof would be covering every winter game after that.
I am sure (at least I hope) that the Flames organization has gone through a ton of options and have chosen a good balance between initial construction costs and ongoing potential cash-flow. Certainly have had copious amounts of time to look at anything and everything available.
suburbia
Mar 12, 2015, 9:19 PM
^Part (most) of the problem with the big O and any indoor stadium is it is made for many uses meaning compromises are made that make some events worse than others. That's the definition of multipurpose: sucking at everything in some manner.
It's 14C in Calgary today. I'm thinking MLS in April will always work. :haha:
It is particularly difficult when multi-purpose includes a baseball diamond. The skydome and the big O had that massive challenge, but other places that are used in a multi-purpose fashion without the need for baseball do just fine.
CalgaryAlex
Mar 12, 2015, 9:53 PM
Suburbia, I do like your idea for a concert hall at one end of the Saddledome. What if the other side was a curved set of offices, and a conference hall on the bottom?
Furthermore, take out a portion of the middle of the roof for sunlight penetration and build a public square/market there. Make either end of the public area open-air as well, integrating it with the pathway system to the SE and Olympic Way to the NW. Integrate some more permanent structures along the outdoor pathway from Victoria Park Station to the Saddledome, perhaps. Once the population in East Beltline increases with The Guadrian, Orchard and and few other vacant blocks, there could be the population density to justify such a destination only a few blocks away. Could become a permanent people-gathering location for the Stampede (of which they are sorely lacking).
Ok... end of fantasy!
I don't know... anything would be better than leaving it to rust, only to become another relic like the Corral.
Luk_o
Mar 12, 2015, 10:04 PM
Keep it open air! It's part of the game, thats what beer jackets are for. Just larger overhangs and better wind mitigation design.
DizzyEdge
Mar 12, 2015, 10:41 PM
open air and heated seats/benches?
suburbia
Mar 12, 2015, 10:45 PM
Furthermore, take out a portion of the middle of the roof for sunlight penetration and build a public square/market there. Make either end of the public area open-air as well, integrating it with the pathway system to the SE and Olympic Way to the NW.
Saddledome roof stays up with a series of tension cables. Can't just cut a hole like that, though I suppose some of the squares of concrete could become a panel of windows.
CalgaryAlex
Mar 12, 2015, 10:55 PM
Saddledome roof stays up with a series of tension cables. Can't just cut a hole like that, though I suppose some of the squares of concrete could become a panel of windows.
I figured that was the case, although I am sure some solution could be found for something ambitious like this.
tovan
Mar 12, 2015, 10:58 PM
http://stadiumdb.com/designs/rus/vtb_arena
This would do nicely.
suburbia
Mar 12, 2015, 11:12 PM
http://stadiumdb.com/designs/rus/vtb_arena
This would do nicely.
I don't think there is enough room without a massive do-over for the roads network.
http://stadiumdb.com/pic-projects/vtb_arena/vtb_arena16.jpg
I also wonder that even if something like that can work, if there is enough good space for density, commercial, entertainment around that area?
Socguy
Mar 13, 2015, 1:10 AM
Love the design but Katz bent them over. The taxpayer will be paying for it for decades. I would have rather seen the money spent elsewhere.
How so?
The bulk of the Edmonton's contribution will be paid for through a ticket tax on events in the new arena and through a CRL on the area around the new arena. This is a tax-base that didn't exist prior to the arena deal.
In fact, since the announcement of the new arena there has been 2.5b worth of new development slated for the area around the arena and more to come. This development is happening because of the new arena. It would not have occurred without it. We know this because the land the arena is built on was parking lots for decades and the development only chose to locate in the district after the arena was confirmed and knowing full well that they would have to pay extra through the CRL to be there. At the end of the day 'taxpayers' aren't paying for Edmonton's arena, rather users and specific taxpayers who by and large chose to be there are the ones paying.
But could they have gotten a better deal? Doubtful. The fact that the arena deal in Edmonton took ~4 years of intense haggling back and forth, veiled threats of moving the team, councilors dead-set against any public money being involved along with massive public opposition basically undermines any argument that Edmonton could have gotten a significantly better deal.
At the end of the day, Edmonton faced a choice: Make the deal and reap the rewards of the revitalization of a huge dead zone in their core including millions in new tax revenue or walk away from it all. Edmonton chose wisely IMO.
Calgary, OTOH, is in a totally different situation that Edmonton. Sure a new arena and stadium are overdue but there's no real argument to be made that building them will spur a boom of development, at least one that wouldn't have happened anyway. Calgary is already booming. In fact, even giving land away to build these things will likely cost the city millions in lost revenue from other potential high value uses for that land. The primary -perhaps only- beneficiaries of any new stadium/arena in Calgary will be the Flames ownership. It will be very interesting to see what the 'ask' is from King.
suburbia
Mar 13, 2015, 1:17 AM
How so?
The bulk of the Edmonton's contribution will be paid for through a ticket tax on events in the new arena and through a CRL on the area around the new arena. This is a tax-base that didn't exist prior to the arena deal.
In fact, since the announcement of the new arena there has been 2.5b worth of new development slated for the area around the arena and more to come. This development is happening because of the new arena. It would not have occurred without it. We know this because the land the arena is built on was parking lots for decades and the development only chose to locate in the district after the arena was confirmed and knowing full well that they would have to pay extra through the CRL to be there. At the end of the day 'taxpayers' aren't paying for Edmonton's arena, rather users and specific taxpayers who by and large chose to be there are the ones paying.
But could they have gotten a better deal? Doubtful. The fact that the arena deal in Edmonton took ~4 years of intense haggling back and forth, veiled threats of moving the team, councilors dead-set against any public money being involved along with massive public opposition basically undermines any argument that Edmonton could have gotten a significantly better deal.
At the end of the day, Edmonton faced a choice: Make the deal and reap the rewards of the revitalization of a huge dead zone in their core including millions in new tax revenue or walk away from it all. Edmonton chose wisely IMO.
Calgary, OTOH, is in a totally different situation that Edmonton. Sure a new arena and stadium are overdue but there's no real argument to be made that building them will spur a boom of development, at least one that wouldn't have happened anyway. Calgary is already booming. In fact, even giving land away to build these things will likely cost the city millions in lost revenue from other potential high value uses for that land. The primary -perhaps only- beneficiaries of any new stadium/arena in Calgary will be the Flames ownership. It will be very interesting to see what the 'ask' is from King.
Curious. Who is doing the adjacent development(s) (and thus will be gaining the profits)? The City, or is it the owner of the Oilers and/or someone related? Kind of like a Bronconier, no?
speedog
Mar 13, 2015, 1:56 AM
The 'ask' is from King - well, there has been that group that's been trying to get a field house built in Calgary that would've most likely had public monies going towards it. If the Flames build a spectacular field house and offer it up to the city as a part of a deal and maybe throw in some road re-alignments (if in the west side), would the city take a serious sniff. If it's north of Stampede ground (rail town?), if the deal offered is a field house and relocation of affected bus barns, again would the city consider it?
Doug
Mar 13, 2015, 1:59 AM
Love the design but Katz bent them over. The taxpayer will be paying for it for decades. I would have rather seen the money spent elsewhere.
Billionaires tend to be good salespeople
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.