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
Aug 13, 2015, 8:29 PM
Richmond Oval

Here's an image from how it was during the Olympics for long track. It also provides height scale. Could use more for some sports, but doesn't need much more. Would obviously need more seating too.
https://raic.org/sites/default/files/awards/images/award_recipients/richmond-5.jpg

After conversion on conclusion of Olympics:
http://richmondoval.ca/docs/virtual_tour.htm

Here's an overview image - the track on the left is 200m, just to provide scale - so this much larger than a full-on 400m track in total:
http://www.solaripedia.com/images/large/2347.jpg

I've not embedded images because I don't want to bother with all of the appropriate copyright disclaimers and the like. Others can do it if they wish, of course.

I think this structure is much better than some of the other ugly facilities that have been shared, while also being much larger and flexible.

Innersoul1
Aug 13, 2015, 8:36 PM
That looks like only a 200m track, and not even full size.

That being said, I don't think we discount it just because something exactly like what would be needed doesn't exist. Heck, our Olympic Oval has a 440M track around the perimeter with some stands, a long jump pit and the rest of it. It also has an artificial surface they've laid out for soccer games in the past. What it doesn't have is proper washroom facilities, entry and exit bandwidth and nor a proper reception / lobby / concourse area, HVAC and seating beyond 4K, but the structure is interesting. The Richmond Oval is much better on many fronts (concourse, washrooms, entry/exit bandwidth), and perhaps that is a starting point touchstone. More seats means higher roof, so those items are integrated and not much of an issue.

These two structures, in addition to actual field-houses, may actually help our imaginations.

Of course, what do I know.

I certainly agree with you on the front that just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't be done. That's the marvel of engineering. The Richmond Oval is certainly a good starting point but what Calgary is potentially (rumored:shrug:) proposing isn't just a step up, it is a giant leap. I think the reason why something like this doesn't exist is because when you get to a fieldhouse of that size it just makes financial and engineering sense to go to a stadium. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Malcolm, your visuals all makes sense, it's just the addition of the spectator stands that make the roof spans truly gigantic.

Socguy
Aug 13, 2015, 8:40 PM
That is money for the field-house, which was identified as a priority for funding by city council iirc. If that money can be leveraged into something bigger, then great!

I also expect them to ask for and get the super favourable tax treatment they enjoy in the dome, and an interesting partnership with a CRL to pay for cleanup, LRT upgrades and associated neighbourhood costs.

I have no problem with the money being leveraged in principal, but we still need lots of clarification. Such as: If the city pays $200m for this fieldhouse does the city then own it? Who collects the revenue from the events there? Who pays to maintain it? Is it going to be as accessible to the public as if the city built their own field house? Who's going to run it and will it be targeted at the same kinds of uses that the field house it 'replaces' would be? (I.E. if it shuts down periodically to do trade shows formerly held at BMO, then is the public receiving the full benefit of a field house?) And so on...

MalcolmTucker
Aug 13, 2015, 8:58 PM
Does the city own Westside, or does the Westside Regional Recreation Society? What about the YMCA's? Does anyone really care? Does it have any real impact on users?

A big step would be bringing the field-house society onboard from a political perspective and signing a MOU on what availability would look like.

The Olympic Oval is used for non-sports things like the regional science fair. Should we really spell out covenants that the facility might not be able to undo and tie their hands? I'd rather leave that matter to a board of directors the city has already entrusted (at least at this early stage) with the project.

Innersoul1
Aug 13, 2015, 9:44 PM
Richmond Oval

Here's an image from how it was during the Olympics for long track. It also provides height scale. Could use more for some sports, but doesn't need much more. Would obviously need more seating too.
https://raic.org/sites/default/files/awards/images/award_recipients/richmond-5.jpg

After conversion on conclusion of Olympics:
http://richmondoval.ca/docs/virtual_tour.htm

Here's an overview image - the track on the left is 200m, just to provide scale - so this much larger than a full-on 400m track in total:
http://www.solaripedia.com/images/large/2347.jpg

I've not embedded images because I don't want to bother with all of the appropriate copyright disclaimers and the like. Others can do it if they wish, of course.

I think this structure is much better than some of the other ugly facilities that have been shared, while also being much larger and flexible.

It's a beautiful facility and the wood beams are gorgeous. But it's max capacity for speed skating was only 8000. The height and spans for a structure designed to fit larger than that will be quite significant.

suburbia
Aug 13, 2015, 10:36 PM
It's a beautiful facility and the wood beams are gorgeous. But it's max capacity for speed skating was only 8000. The height and spans for a structure designed to fit larger than that will be quite significant.

You guys are really funny. Several people have highlighted facilities that have much smaller spans than the richmond oval. The richmond oval has a main open area of 220,000sf, so much larger than mcmahon's floor (which is not even 120,000 sf) and substantially larger than a 400m olympic running track. Correct, only 8,000seating as it is built, but suggesting the spans are not in the same league when at the same time others are showing mini-spans across a 200m track is really not fair. I'd rather the oval as a starting point touchstone than say that small track in Doha or the one in Birmingham, or the fugly north dakota 300m track.

Some stats about the richmond oval:
- Plan area of 270,000 sf, with a main open arena of 220,000 sf and a total floor area of more than 500,000 sf
- spans (width) are 330 ft and 660 sf long (CFL football field 330' long X 195' wide, so the richmond oval is as wide as a CFL field is long)
- it has underground parking

The one you'd want for Calgary may need to be a pinch taller and marginally wider, but not much. This is a MUCH better touchstone as a starting point than anything else I've seen here in the last day.

Gripe: There are many thoughtful and intelligent people on this forum, but often I really feel picked on, and the above is a perfect example. I'm not sure it is because all of you are 12 and lack maturity or true wisdom, or perhaps because you are older but never really felt loved and so are going to be bullies.

Socguy
Aug 13, 2015, 11:22 PM
Does the city own Westside, or does the Westside Regional Recreation Society? What about the YMCA's? Does anyone really care? Does it have any real impact on users?

A big step would be bringing the field-house society onboard from a political perspective and signing a MOU on what availability would look like.

The Olympic Oval is used for non-sports things like the regional science fair. Should we really spell out covenants that the facility might not be able to undo and tie their hands? I'd rather leave that matter to a board of directors the city has already entrusted (at least at this early stage) with the project.

I think it's a good idea that the city have an idea what it expects from a $200M investment, yes.

As for bringing the field house society onboard, that's a great idea, but will it be possible if KK owns the facility or demands exclusive rights to operate it? My point is that we should know these things before we divert money from a different facility.

I'm not trying to argue that multiple uses are a bad thing, just the opposite. However, the underlying point I'm trying to make is that if the city is footing the bill, the primary uses of the field, should primarily benefit the population of the city and not the pockets of KK. Hypothetical example: A science fair is a great community use, but is it profitable? What if they decide it's more profitable to compete with the convention center, the Stampede and the BMO center for trade shows and the like? Would a scenerio like this be something that we want or do we then have to spend another $200M to build the facility we thought we were getting? I can't speak for everyone else, but to me the question of who will owns the facility and how it's run is central to any discussion of giving $$$ to the project.

craner
Aug 13, 2015, 11:40 PM
A must for me is that the stands cover the track during football games.
I also really don't want an indoor stadium, kills the atmosphere at a game. Retractable roof would be the ultimate but I can't see that happening.

Innersoul1
Aug 13, 2015, 11:41 PM
You guys are really funny. Several people have highlighted facilities that have much smaller spans than the richmond oval. The richmond oval has a main open area of 220,000sf, so much larger than mcmahon's floor (which is not even 120,000 sf) and substantially larger than a 400m olympic running track. Correct, only 8,000seating as it is built, but suggesting the spans are not in the same league when at the same time others are showing mini-spans across a 200m track is really not fair. I'd rather the oval as a starting point touchstone than say that small track in Doha or the one in Birmingham, or the fugly north dakota 300m track.

Some stats about the richmond oval:
- Plan area of 270,000 sf, with a main open arena of 220,000 sf and a total floor area of more than 500,000 sf
- spans (width) are 330 ft and 660 sf long (CFL football field 330' long X 195' wide, so the richmond oval is as wide as a CFL field is long)
- it has underground parking

The one you'd want for Calgary may need to be a pinch taller and marginally wider, but not much. This is a MUCH better touchstone as a starting point than anything else I've seen here in the last day.

Gripe: There are many thoughtful and intelligent people on this forum, but often I really feel picked on, and the above is a perfect example. I'm not sure it is because all of you are 12 and lack maturity or true wisdom, or perhaps because you are older but never really felt loved and so are going to be bullies.

Hey Champ. I have stayed out of any of the child's play that surround you and your posts. I have better things to do. I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say, or maybe in my rush to post I have not been clear.

All I am trying to say is YES the spans are long and the area underneath those spans (floor area) is large. However, when you raise the roof of a building to accommodate the bleachers plus the necessary infrastructure and facilities (food and beverage, offices, back of house, dressing rooms, concourse) the footprint of the facility becomes becomes extremely large. This is keeping in mind that if the bleachers are to be retractable to some extent there will be no room underneath to house these kinds of services.

The only thing that i disagree with you about is the height. The roof height would have to increase significantly. I can easily kick a soccer ball in there and hit the roof. Actually did it with a volleyball while I was there (got a stern talking to as well :tup:)

suburbia
Aug 14, 2015, 12:32 AM
All I am trying to say is YES the spans are long and the area underneath those spans (floor area) is large. However, when you raise the roof of a building to accommodate the bleachers plus the necessary infrastructure and facilities (food and beverage, offices, back of house, dressing rooms, concourse) the footprint of the facility becomes becomes extremely large.

I didn't mean to pick on you.

Anyway, what you're saying makes sense, but even with all of that, you'd be surprised how much 270,000 of building footprint is. Probably the same as McMahon overall. Food/beverage/other back of house don't need to be under the same span, of course, and keep in mind this building is multiple floors, so some back of house could be managed that way - in fact would need to be because the other constraint you're going to come up with in West Village is the limited space for a fieldhouse plus arena plus all additional pieces in a contiguous fashion. What can be stacked will need to be.

Anyway, if it wasn't clear in my prior note, all the other examples supplied sucked the big one.

Acajack
Aug 14, 2015, 2:11 PM
Didn't one of the Montreal expo facilities get repurposed as a biodome or something along that line?

The velodrome from the 1976 Olympics at the base of the stadium tower was turned into the Biodôme. The olympic pool however is still there.

Some of the Expo 67 stuff was repurposed on the islands in the St. Lawrence just off downtown. For example the French expo pavilion is the city's casino. The Formula 1 race track is on the islands as is La Ronde, an amusement park.

Surrealplaces
Aug 14, 2015, 3:08 PM
That is money for the field-house, which was identified as a priority for funding by city council iirc. If that money can be leveraged into something bigger, then great!

I also expect them to ask for and get the super favourable tax treatment they enjoy in the dome, and an interesting partnership with a CRL to pay for cleanup, LRT upgrades and associated neighbourhood costs.

My thoughts too. If they can work in that already allocated money into something bigger and better then why not?

Surrealplaces
Aug 14, 2015, 3:08 PM
Water park :)

Coolest skateboard park ever. :cool:

Innersoul1
Aug 14, 2015, 3:18 PM
I believe that Riise was the first to suggest this. But what about a structure like Forsyth Barr Stadium in New Zealand? The ETFE roof is quite attractive and allows for a beautiful flood of natural light making the field level condusive to a natural grass pitch if needed. Also if we are thinking of this in terms of a field house, the natural light and general airiness make it appealing. As constructed in NZ it has a capacity of 30,000.
http://s3.hubsrv.com/trendsideas.com/8268642511372514395/photo/8268642511372514395/original/111250_1620x1080.jpg Credit: Trendsideas.com

Here is a clip on the construction of the complex. Footage starts at 1:13
jnuETjK_gOQ

This fly-through gives a good idea of the space:
hJs7Z4fRrKQ

suburbia
Aug 14, 2015, 4:11 PM
I believe that Riise was the first to suggest this. But what about a structure like Forsyth Barr Stadium in New Zealand? The ETFE roof is quite attractive and allows for a beautiful flood of natural light making the field level condusive to a natural grass pitch if needed. Also if we are thinking of this in terms of a field house, the natural light and general airiness make it appealing. As constructed in NZ it has a capacity of 30,000.
http://s3.hubsrv.com/trendsideas.com/8268642511372514395/photo/8268642511372514395/original/111250_1620x1080.jpg Credit: Trendsideas.com

Here is a clip on the construction of the complex. Footage starts at 1:13
jnuETjK_gOQ

This fly-through gives a good idea of the space:
hJs7Z4fRrKQ

This one is nice - basically a metal and clear plastic version of the elegant richmond oval, but with a secondary span. I think an important consideration may end up being, not only cost, but also, the energy impacts of a massive clear-span like this in our climate. Tonnes of heating and tonnes of cooling, depending on time of year. Even if it can be justified from a cost perspective, are energy inefficient designs like this really warranted in this day and age? Also, if you built this one as is in Calgary, it may also collapse at the required snow load required.

By the way, does anyone know the specific lots they are looking at, or it this still completely up in the air? I'd think that pulling an elevated connection due north from the train station would likely be the midpoint of the complex, but then I'm wondering if there could be some elements that would be somehow shared between the two buildings and how that would look? Consider concourse / food / washrooms and the like. Perhaps conference / convention meeting rooms. Heck, maybe even some ultra high-end boxes that open up to both sides. Anyway, interested in the footprint of the potential lots, as that may also depend how this pans out. As we've seen in some other buildings, some elements being stacked may be a requirement to get the floor area needed into an urban context. Parking for such, but maybe other things also. Consider how stacked the new Vancouver Convention Centre is, as one example. Elevated access from the train to field house field level could create massive opportunities for the street level, including restaurant and retail, but also convention / meeting type spaces. Could be a massive scary Frankenstein though, but just brainstorming / thinking outside of the box (or under it).

Surrealplaces
Aug 14, 2015, 4:15 PM
:previous:

That looks great. I would love to see something like that as the stadium portion.

Innersoul1
Aug 14, 2015, 7:16 PM
A few details about Forsyth Barr: The stadium was designed with the flow of natural air in mind. At the end of the field on both sides there are openings for ventilation. This allows for natural air circulation. I guess something to keep in mind is that Dunedin does not get as cold as Calgary so ventilation would be something to consider for sure.

The EFTE roof is the same roof material that is being used for the roof of the new football stadium in Minnesota. So it has been tested to withstand the weight of the snow. This is what I have found:

"Under normal weather conditions, the pressure in the cushions is 300 pascals which is around 0.2% of the pressure in a car tyre. In the event of a storm or snowfall, the pressure is increased to a maximum of 600 pascals. This is sufficient to safely support a load of up to 600 kilograms of snow per square metre. The blowers generating the compressed air are designed with dual redundancy so that even if two blowers were to fail, pneumatic support would be maintained. Even in the case of a failure of the entire pressure supply, the high loads specified would be held by the foils, which have a very high tensile strength."
Source: http://www.plastics.gl/construction/etfe-fluorothermoplastic-roof-supports-50-t-of-snow-and-generates-electricity/

O-tacular
Aug 14, 2015, 7:18 PM
Construction of CalgaryNEXT likely won't start for another three years if approved for downtown west end (http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/08/13/construction-of-calgarynext-likely-wont-start-for-another-three-years-if-approved-for-downtown-west-end)

I like how the first comment in the comments section is "Build it in Balzac by the Mall and upgrade Deerfoot and Stoney!". :rolleyes::koko:

suburbia
Aug 14, 2015, 7:24 PM
"Under normal weather conditions, the pressure in the cushions is 300 pascals which is around 0.2% of the pressure in a car tyre. In the event of a storm or snowfall, the pressure is increased to a maximum of 600 pascals. This is sufficient to safely support a load of up to 600 kilograms of snow per square metre. The blowers generating the compressed air are designed with dual redundancy so that even if two blowers were to fail, pneumatic support would be maintained. Even in the case of a failure of the entire pressure supply, the high loads specified would be held by the foils, which have a very high tensile strength."
Source: http://www.plastics.gl/construction/etfe-fluorothermoplastic-roof-supports-50-t-of-snow-and-generates-electricity/

So it is like the BC place roof before it got replaced. I didn't mind it, but didn't like the ears popping when you enter. The pressure you're talking about is slight, but likely differential and not absolute.

za7OyBlfwVM

MalcolmTucker
Aug 14, 2015, 7:51 PM
^ No, the compressed air goes in between layers of the foil. Think the outside of the watercube in Beijing, or the Eden Project.

On Eden:

The Eden Project designers formed this ETFE material into extremely sturdy pillows, each made from three sheets of ETFE foil welded together along the sides, one on top of the other, with layers of air pumped in between them. The air layers provide increased insulation without decreasing the amount of sunlight that shines through. The coolest thing about these pillows is that they are adjustable: On a colder day, they can be pumped up with more air to provide better insulation; on a hotter day, they can be partially deflated to allow more cooling.
from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/conservationists/eden3.htm

VIce
Aug 14, 2015, 7:51 PM
So it is like the BC place roof before it got replaced. I didn't mind it, but didn't like the ears popping when you enter. The pressure you're talking about is slight, but likely differential and not absolute.


You mean they're not planning to asphyxiate everybody who enters the building?

suburbia
Aug 14, 2015, 8:18 PM
^ No, the compressed air goes in between layers of the foil. Think the outside of the watercube in Beijing, or the Eden Project.

On Eden:
from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/conservationists/eden3.htm

Thanks. Makes better sense, enhancing the insulating factor also.

Even if the increased pressure for snow load for these is modest, there would be massive changes to the trusses required, as compared to the example stadium presented. Hard to know the cost implications. We'll see if Ken King shares details of the overall budget they are looking at.

Innersoul1
Aug 14, 2015, 8:28 PM
^ No, the compressed air goes in between layers of the foil. Think the outside of the watercube in Beijing, or the Eden Project.

On Eden:
from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/conservationists/eden3.htm

Bang on. I have seen some applications of this product that include solar panels in the pillows. Something neat to consider to green things up for sure. Also makes for some very interesting lighting installations as is the case with the Water Cube.

Tuesday can't come soon enough

craner
Aug 14, 2015, 10:33 PM
Tuesday can't come soon enough
No kidding !!

bt04ku
Aug 15, 2015, 12:28 AM
I believe that Riise was the first to suggest this. But what about a structure like Forsyth Barr Stadium in New Zealand? The ETFE roof is quite attractive and allows for a beautiful flood of natural light making the field level condusive to a natural grass pitch if needed. Also if we are thinking of this in terms of a field house, the natural light and general airiness make it appealing. As constructed in NZ it has a capacity of 30,000.


U.S. Bank Field (Minnesota Vikings new stadium) also went the 'closed-roof, natural light' way, It'd definitely be a much better atmosphere for a game if closed-roof is the way to go. Can't imagine natural grass would ever be considered for anything other than the World Cup but having a natural light option would make it slightly cheaper to implement for it, for however brief a time.

https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/523126603_640.jpg

Riise
Aug 15, 2015, 5:55 AM
I believe that Riise was the first to suggest this. But what about a structure like Forsyth Barr Stadium in New Zealand?

Oh yeah, Forsyth Barr. Thanks for the reminder!

The more I go over it, the more I think that Fieldhouse really means an Indoor Stadium with some thought toward the provision of space for amateur sports. I'd be happy with something as open as Forsyth Barr but I'd be hesitant to even call that stadium a Fieldhouse.

jeffwhit
Aug 15, 2015, 7:36 AM
I like how the first comment in the comments section is "Build it in Balzac by the Mall and upgrade Deerfoot and Stoney!". :rolleyes::koko:

Anyone who tried going to the Mallzac on Boxing Day would know what a horrible idea this is.

suburbia
Aug 15, 2015, 2:51 PM
Anyone who tried going to the Mallzac on Boxing Day would know what a horrible idea this is.

I suspect whom ever posted that was kidding (and no, it wasn't me). That being said, Mallzac used to get knocked before development as something that wouldn't work, and now gets knocked for being overly successful.

The stadium/arena project is intended for re-development, so is better placed in a place that is more prime and is completely underdeveloped or is being used inadequately. Clearly West Village and Firepark make most sense.

WhipperSnapper
Aug 15, 2015, 3:07 PM
Malzac got knocked for its location and, because of this, there was a desire among forumers for it to fail. I don't think anyone suggested it would fail though.

Do the Flames even own property?

speedog
Aug 15, 2015, 3:53 PM
Malzac got knocked for its location and, because of this, there was a desire among forumers for it to fail. I don't think anyone suggested it would fail though.

Do the Flames even own property?

Gah, you're going to hate me for posting this but I believe someone stated elsewhere in these forums that one or a number of theFlames owners owns the Firepark lands or at least a majority of those lands.

Riise
Aug 15, 2015, 5:41 PM
That being said, Mallzac used to get knocked before development as something that wouldn't work, and now gets knocked for being overly successful.

Generating a traffic mess on the fringe of the city does constitute a planning failure. Thanks Rocky View!

The Fisher Account
Aug 15, 2015, 6:45 PM
Gah, you're going to hate me for posting this but I believe someone stated elsewhere in these forums that one or a number of theFlames owners owns the Firepark lands or at least a majority of those lands.

http://i.imgur.com/k5Rm0YV.gif

Innersoul1
Aug 17, 2015, 2:54 PM
I am impressed that they have been able to keep this such a closely guarded secret.

Innersoul1
Aug 17, 2015, 4:53 PM
Creosote contamination at proposed arena site to be studied

ANNALISE KLINGBEIL, CALGARY HERALD
More from Annalise Klingbeil, Calgary Herald
August 16, 2015

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/creosote-contamination-at-proposed-arena-site-to-be-studied

"Calgary Municipal Land Corp. (CMLC) is busy hiring a consultant for an environmental review of the area, but the bigger question — aside from the extent of the creosote damage — is who will pay the multimillion-dollar cleanup tab."

I find the timing of all of this to be very interesting. A piece of land that has been relatively out of the spotlight is all of the sudden mentioned by a sports franchise and the land owners are rushing to seek consultation on clean-up? I am VERY intrigued.

craner
Aug 17, 2015, 6:36 PM
One more day till we find out . . . something ?

DizzyEdge
Aug 17, 2015, 6:55 PM
I see the remediation is estimated between 50-300 million bux (quite the range).
Any guesses as to what the land value is if the remediation was complete? I'm wondering if the land currently has negative value.

Innersoul1
Aug 17, 2015, 7:07 PM
I see the remediation is estimated between 50-300 million bux (quite the range).
Any guesses as to what the land value is if the remediation was complete? I'm wondering if the land currently has negative value.

I believe that an article was posted earlier speculating that there was a negative land value.

CalgaryArchitecture
Aug 17, 2015, 7:16 PM
http://calgarynext.com/ has been registered but a username and password is needed.

Fuzz
Aug 17, 2015, 9:28 PM
Just curious as I haven't been in McMahon in years...how bad is it? Would it be cheaper just to retrofit the place? I mean a stadium is just a field with bleachers. If they need more concourse area couldn't they just add 25m or whatever to the outside?

tomthumb2
Aug 17, 2015, 9:34 PM
Just curious as I haven't been in McMahon in years...how bad is it? Would it be cheaper just to retrofit the place? I mean a stadium is just a field with bleachers. If they need more concourse area couldn't they just add 25m or whatever to the outside?

Not only is it bad but the Flames don't own the building so its not even a consideration.

suburbia
Aug 17, 2015, 9:41 PM
Generating a traffic mess on the fringe of the city does constitute a planning failure. Thanks Rocky View!

I've never witnessed it being a traffic failure actually. I've seen it packed to the brim no doubt. Possibly on boxing day or the like (when I don't actually go there) but if that's the day you're talking about, there are a few places that are ridiculous at that time. Anyway, back on topic please.

suburbia
Aug 17, 2015, 9:43 PM
Creosote contamination at proposed arena site to be studied

ANNALISE KLINGBEIL, CALGARY HERALD
More from Annalise Klingbeil, Calgary Herald
August 16, 2015

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/creosote-contamination-at-proposed-arena-site-to-be-studied

"Calgary Municipal Land Corp. (CMLC) is busy hiring a consultant for an environmental review of the area, but the bigger question — aside from the extent of the creosote damage — is who will pay the multimillion-dollar cleanup tab."

I find the timing of all of this to be very interesting. A piece of land that has been relatively out of the spotlight is all of the sudden mentioned by a sports franchise and the land owners are rushing to seek consultation on clean-up? I am VERY intrigued.

It may actually be a set-up to justify NOT putting it West Village. Where do you think there are thinking is a possible alternate?

Things may be completely opposite of what we may think. It is possible the city *wants* it in West Village, but the owners do not.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 17, 2015, 9:44 PM
If you're over a certain height McMahon is pretty uncomfortable to sit in. I don't think you could make it much better without major work on the concrete bleachers.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 17, 2015, 9:45 PM
It may actually be a set-up to justify NOT putting it West Village. Where do you think there are thinking is a possible alternate?

Things may be completely opposite of what we may think. It is possible the city *wants* it in West Village, but the owners do not.

Eventually it has to be cleaned up. It probably is cheaper to act earlier, especially if there is current flow of contaminants.

red_179
Aug 17, 2015, 9:47 PM
Just curious as I haven't been in McMahon in years...how bad is it? Would it be cheaper just to retrofit the place? I mean a stadium is just a field with bleachers. If they need more concourse area couldn't they just add 25m or whatever to the outside?

McMahon is terrible, after the new stadium in Regina is ready, it's probably the worst in the CFL. The degree of retrofitting that would be necessary would be very significant and since the Flames/Stamps don't own McMahon, it would be unlikely for them to pour money into it. Having their own building with more luxury suites, parking revenue, upgraded concessions, and protection from weather will allow them to make a lot more revenue, than a retrofitted McMahon would.

Fuzz
Aug 17, 2015, 9:51 PM
OK, thanks guys.

craner
Aug 17, 2015, 11:47 PM
A new stadium is a much bigger need than a new arena IMO.

McMurph
Aug 18, 2015, 1:27 AM
It will be interesting to see what the U of C does with McMahon after the Stamps leave. It is a crappy place and way bigger than what they need. They could easily fit a decent university-sized stadium (Canadian sized, that is) there or on the west campus and free up a ton of space for new TOD on the grounds of McMahon and its parking-lots

Chadillaccc
Aug 18, 2015, 2:43 AM
U of C would do just fine with a U of T style of stadium, just with bleachers on both sides.

http://www.newcollege.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/MinaApril13-1.jpg
http://www.newcollege.utoronto.ca/student-blog/disconnection-community-and-the-college-system/


A stadium like this would only require about 70% of McMahon's footprint and would warrant less than half the current parking.

red_179
Aug 18, 2015, 3:33 AM
The Herald is reporting it may be one singular sports complex combining an arena, stadium and field house. If so, wow!!!

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/flames-expected-to-unveil-one-giant-sports-complex

McMurph
Aug 18, 2015, 4:04 AM
U of C would do just fine with a U of T style of stadium, just with bleachers on both sides.
A stadium like this would only require about 70% of McMahon's footprint and would warrant less than half the current parking.

Exactly. They could add the track and replace the foothills athletic park facilities to the north. There is enough land there for a university football stadium with 400m track and all necessary parking. It would give the U of C and city better facilities and open up all of McMahon's stadium and parking available for future development.

CalgaryArchitecture
Aug 18, 2015, 6:01 AM
Leaked Arena Plans?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2383490/CPPictures/flames-stadium-new-thumb.jpg
source from calgarypuck.com by a user

Innersoul1
Aug 18, 2015, 6:08 AM
I can't sleep. I was looking at the Edmonton Rogers Arena thread and I am envious! That picture above has me drooling!

Wooster
Aug 18, 2015, 6:48 AM
The placement of many of the buildings are odd, which makes me skeptical. WB Bow Trail seems to just disappear into buildings. A condo tower is directly touching the WLRT guideway. Either a very sloppy conceptual image, or a hoax.

Chadillaccc
Aug 18, 2015, 7:01 AM
Leaked Arena Plans?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2383490/CPPictures/flames-stadium-new-thumb.jpg
source from calgarypuck.com by a user

I may or may not have shat myself just now. Very cool looking. Looking forward to seeing more tomorrow. :)


Disclaimer: I didn't.

RyLucky
Aug 18, 2015, 2:20 PM
The placement of many of the buildings are odd, which makes me skeptical. WB Bow Trail seems to just disappear into buildings. A condo tower is directly touching the WLRT guideway. Either a very sloppy conceptual image, or a hoax.

I almost wonder if the best solution to the West Village problem is to burry/cover Bow Trail from 14th St to about 18th st, freeing up about 4.5-5 acres for development, local surface roads, and park space.

My hunch is that the economics would only make sense if the westvillage could attract close to a billion dollars in taxable property investment, as is probably shown in the render above.

bt04ku
Aug 18, 2015, 3:04 PM
The placement of many of the buildings are odd, which makes me skeptical. .

The buildings are placed conspicuously far to the west of Firepark to be believable

fusili
Aug 18, 2015, 3:06 PM
The buildings are placed conspicuously far to the west of Firepark to be believable

You won the forum today.

Surferguy
Aug 18, 2015, 3:09 PM
It may actually be a set-up to justify NOT putting it West Village. Where do you think there are thinking is a possible alternate?

Things may be completely opposite of what we may think. It is possible the city *wants* it in West Village, but the owners do not.

I haven't been keeping up on this but what do you think of the Firepark location? Has that been mentioned?

Tills13
Aug 18, 2015, 3:31 PM
~~today's the day~~

Godspeed, forumers.

#WestEndOrBust

tomthumb2
Aug 18, 2015, 3:45 PM
I wouldn't get too excited (good or bad) about this drawing - even if it is real. Looks to me like its just a vision of what it "might" look like. Much like the early drawings of the stadium in Regina. The end result ended up looking nothing like that. Probably the same case here. They probably haven't even hired an architect yet. I'm just hoping this creates a positive buzz in our city and we get it done right.

ByeByeBaby
Aug 18, 2015, 4:14 PM
Maybe it's time for the inspiring speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs&t=1046) before today's big announcement.

(Sorry it's not embedded; for some reason embedding YouTube on here doesn't permit specifying a start time anymore, and the whole thing is 20 minutes - worth watching, but the pep talk is at the end.)

Innersoul1
Aug 18, 2015, 4:24 PM
I am just wondering how often world-class will be mentioned.

O-tacular
Aug 18, 2015, 4:38 PM
I am just wondering how often world-class will be mentioned.

That and 'game changer' or 'transformative'.

nick.flood
Aug 18, 2015, 4:54 PM
delete

nick.flood
Aug 18, 2015, 4:57 PM
delete

Bigtime
Aug 18, 2015, 4:58 PM
CP's leaking into SSP? ;)

RyLucky
Aug 18, 2015, 4:58 PM
the buildings are placed conspicuously far to the west of firepark to be believable

:d

*Stardust*
Aug 18, 2015, 4:59 PM
The buildings are placed conspicuously far to the west of Firepark to be believable

:haha:

suburbia
Aug 18, 2015, 5:02 PM
The placement of many of the buildings are odd, which makes me skeptical. WB Bow Trail seems to just disappear into buildings. A condo tower is directly touching the WLRT guideway. Either a very sloppy conceptual image, or a hoax.

I would prefer the stadia not take so much river frontage, and instead all that to be more vibrant community spaces with restaurants and entertainment options, and maybe some residential also. That doesn't mean the stadia would not get a profile from the other side of the river, they still could.

suburbia
Aug 18, 2015, 5:04 PM
I haven't been keeping up on this but what do you think of the Firepark location? Has that been mentioned?

Clearly a troll

Innersoul1
Aug 18, 2015, 5:36 PM
I would prefer the stadia not take so much river frontage, and instead all that to be more vibrant community spaces with restaurants and entertainment options, and maybe some residential also. That doesn't mean the stadia would not get a profile from the other side of the river, they still could.

The stadia incorporated into a broad portion of the Riverwalk would be nice. If the stadia had a few year round kiosks or coffee shops restarants that walkers, runners and cyclist could use.

CorporateWhore
Aug 18, 2015, 6:06 PM
Either a very sloppy conceptual image, or a hoax.

Looks like sloppy conceptual image it is.

Me&You
Aug 18, 2015, 6:09 PM
West Village confirmed as the site of the new facility.

Source: Text message from a friend at the presentation.

H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 18, 2015, 6:13 PM
Another conceptual image from the presentation, different angle from the same above:

http://i.imgur.com/0nWP0kg.jpg

All placeholders for now .. Apparently Ken King said there wouldn't be pictures today of it

Bigtime
Aug 18, 2015, 6:13 PM
Not surprised that all we are getting so far is that leaked image and a little bit else. Lots of room for changes and such.

We got burned by the Bow and its renderings, so I'm saying nothing at this point.

CalgaryArchitecture
Aug 18, 2015, 6:14 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMtddrvWwAIj3vM.jpg:large

H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 18, 2015, 6:17 PM
Not surprised that all we are getting so far is that leaked image and a little bit else. Lots of room for changes and such.

We got burned by the Bow and its renderings, so I'm saying nothing at this point.

At least we've got a confirmed location now .. I think we should be happy they've announced as much. This is going to definitely be a kickstarter for the West Village redevelopment, including re-alignment of Bow Trail.

Wonder if this coincides with the Crowchild Tr traffic study that's being re-investigated and that the City will look at improvement Bow/Crowchild as part of West Village redevelopment.

Bigtime
Aug 18, 2015, 6:26 PM
Good point about the confirmed location, some of us already knew that though and I was hoping to see more today.

Surrealplaces
Aug 18, 2015, 6:34 PM
Very conceptual so far

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMtc23EWEAAE4M2.jpg:large

H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 18, 2015, 6:40 PM
Estimated cost is $890M I think, or under $1B ... Wonder how much they're planning for on the re mediation:

http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd364/bwinkelm/21_zpsyzoqa54s.jpg

"Bow trail works fine where it is" apparently....

http://i.imgur.com/u1x0oKV.jpg

Coldrsx
Aug 18, 2015, 6:54 PM
Powerpoint slide indicates Flames putting in $200M, $240M from community revitalization levy, $250M tix tax, $200M from city for fieldhouse.


@ChrisVarcoe

nick.flood
Aug 18, 2015, 6:56 PM
delete

rkarsk
Aug 18, 2015, 6:58 PM
Powerpoint slide indicates Flames putting in $200M, $240M from community revitalization levy, $250M tix tax, $200M from city for fieldhouse.


@ChrisVarcoe

So the Flames are putting in 20% for something they will own 100% of. If I am wrong, someone please explain this to me.

Surrealplaces
Aug 18, 2015, 7:00 PM
So ....looks like this will involve a fair bit af tax money. I thought it was just the 200Mil, but more like about half.

Chealion
Aug 18, 2015, 7:01 PM
Following the tweets I may have been a little more snarky than I should be but I was really frustrated with, to paraphrase a tweet from Bigtime, the lack of homework done. Especially with "Bow Trail is fine as is".

Having a new arena, and fieldhouse would be cool but they really have not done anything to convince me that it's the best use of the West Village land especially compared to the existing West Village ARP.

Also, kind of surprised by the general lack of parking planned.

That the $900M estimate doesn't include the clean up I think is really misleading.

Surrealplaces
Aug 18, 2015, 7:02 PM
So ....looks like this will involve a fair bit af tax money. I thought it was just the 200Mil, but more like about half. Although I suppose the levi is kind of a different type of deal.

H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 18, 2015, 7:02 PM
So the Flames are putting in 20% for something they will own 100% of. If I am wrong, someone please explain this to me.

I believe it will actually be a City asset, from what I heard ... So the City would still own the land

Me&You
Aug 18, 2015, 7:02 PM
So the Flames are putting in 20% for something they will own 100% of. If I am wrong, someone please explain this to me.

KK says the new facility will be city-owned, just as the Saddledome is now

Edit: Damn you, Pennypacker.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 18, 2015, 7:03 PM
So the Flames are putting in 20% for something they will own 100% of. If I am wrong, someone please explain this to me.

On twitter someone at the presentation noted that it was said the city would own. And the Flames money versus the ticket tax is entirely fungible. They could have easily labeled the box 'Flames/Event Users'.

Fuzz
Aug 18, 2015, 7:04 PM
Ugh. 2 things.
1. Bow Trail shouldn't be that close to the river and pathway. Not a friendly pedestrian experience.

2. Those billionaires couldn't scrounge up a few more of their own dollars to avoid a massive "ticket tax". And really, in some form or other they expect taxpayers to cover $440 million? Am I reading that right? This is their imaginary budget, I hope.

Surrealplaces
Aug 18, 2015, 7:04 PM
I believe it will actually be a City asset, from what I heard ... So the City would still own the land

KK says the new facility will be city-owned, just as the Saddledome is now

Edit: Damn you, Pennypacker.

Is that for the stadium, or both arena and stadium?

H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 18, 2015, 7:06 PM
Is that for the stadium, or both arena and stadium?

I assume both the arena and stadium

artvandelay
Aug 18, 2015, 7:07 PM
Powerpoint slide indicates Flames putting in $200M, $240M from community revitalization levy, $250M tix tax, $200M from city for fieldhouse.


@ChrisVarcoe

So the breakdown essentially works out to the Flames organization footing 51% of the cost with the ticket tax and initial investment.

The City puts up $440 million in return for a field-house facility and community arena (in additional to the public benefit of redeveloping an underutilized area and replacing our ancient stadium).

Seems to be a decent proposition.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 18, 2015, 7:07 PM
Ugh. 2 things.
1. Bow Trail shouldn't be that close to the river and pathway. Not a friendly pedestrian experience.

2. Those billionaires couldn't scrounge up a few more of their own dollars to avoid a massive "ticket tax". And really, in some form or other they expect taxpayers to cover $440 million? Am I reading that right? This is their imaginary budget, I hope.

Whether the ticket tax is transparent or comes from the Flames organization directly doesn't really matter. Corporations pass 100% of taxes to their consumers as long as demand isn't depressed by the tax.

H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 18, 2015, 7:10 PM
So the breakdown essentially works out to the Flames organization footing 51% of the cost with the ticket tax and initial investment.

The City puts up $440 million in return for a field-house facility and community arena (in additional to the public benefit of redeveloping an underutilized area and replacing our ancient stadium).

Seems to be a decent proposition.

I agree - especially if the City is going to own it all .. But the question remains who is going to pay for clean up of the GSL site?

That won't be cheap.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 18, 2015, 7:12 PM
I agree - especially if the City is going to own it all .. But the question remains who is going to pay for clean up of the GSL site?

That won't be cheap.

The clean up costs are sunk. It will happen no matter what. The city should have been carrying an unfunded liability on its books as it assembled the land. Now, whether it is desirable to remediate to the point of adding residential, the city already decided cost unseen that that is the case.

artvandelay
Aug 18, 2015, 7:24 PM
The clean up costs are sunk. It will happen no matter what. The city should have been carrying an unfunded liability on its books as it assembled the land. Now, whether it is desirable to remediate to the point of adding residential, the city already decided cost unseen that that is the case.

Exactly. These lands are going to be developed at some point and the cost for remediation will be a public responsibility regardless of how development of the West Village proceeds, as there is no corporate entity remaining that can be held responsible for the cost of cleanup:

Domtar Corporation was the last known owner and operator of this site; however, the corporation no longer exists as a corporate entity in the Province of Alberta. This prevents the Government of Alberta from enforcing the polluter pays principles of the Environment Protection and Enhancement Act. As such, we are working on remediation and monitoring of this site in partnership with the City of Calgary.

lubicon
Aug 18, 2015, 7:27 PM
So is there going to be a fieldhouse or a stadium? Big difference.

my initial thoughts:

1. assuming it is an outdoor stadium then the chances if it ever holding concerts etc. are slim to none with residential surrounding the srea on three sides essentially. So no gain compared to McMahon in that regard.

2. if the City retains ownership of the land and building then presumably they will also be legally responsible for the environmental cleanup and maintenance of the lands. From the Flames perspective (or anyone who would build on this site for that matter) this could be one of the most important aspects as it hangs any associated costs on the taxpayer and not the tenants. That's potentially a very large issue.

CorporateWhore
Aug 18, 2015, 7:34 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty underwhelmed by that presentation.