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

GoflamesGo
Sep 12, 2009, 8:30 PM
Is it possible to build a parkade under an arena, of all the pictures i've seen of stadiums and arenas i've only seen them with huge parking lots surrounding them. With the exception of MSG.

Coulden't they do this with a new arena in Calgary, and use the space that would have been parking, for something that contributes to the area?

I'm thinking about the impact that a huge parking lot would have on the stampede trail development, if the arena did infact get built there, but there were acres of parking lot behind it.

this also applies to the round up centre, why didn't they build parking underneath?

freeweed
Sep 12, 2009, 10:07 PM
Every argument against public funding of an arena can also be used against public funding of art galleries, museums, science centres, zoos, theatres, etc. Would your life REALLY change if the Bow museum left? Would you leave Calgary over it?

Pro sports fall into the same cultural category, bring in the same kind of tourism, and give a city the same cachet on the national/world stage.

I mean, unless you don't like sports. Much as I couldn't give a shit about ballet or opera - but at least I recognize the importance of supporting a diverse cultural and entertainment scene.

fusili
Sep 12, 2009, 10:34 PM
Every argument against public funding of an arena can also be used against public funding of art galleries, museums, science centres, zoos, theatres, etc. Would your life REALLY change if the Bow museum left? Would you leave Calgary over it?

Pro sports fall into the same cultural category, bring in the same kind of tourism, and give a city the same cachet on the national/world stage.

I mean, unless you don't like sports. Much as I couldn't give a shit about ballet or opera - but at least I recognize the importance of supporting a diverse cultural and entertainment scene.

Damn, good point. But then again, why do we fund art galleries, museums, zoos and theatres? Not saying that I don't recognize their cultural importance. But why don't graffiti, break dancers, monster truck shows, etc get funding? Any financial support of the arts (which I totally agree with) involves a tacit judgment of what is deserving art (which I don't agree with). Hence my opposition to tax money going to a stadium.

freeweed
Sep 13, 2009, 12:19 AM
Yeah, it's a bit of a pickle.

I don't necessarily support tax money spent on an arena, but having seen firsthand what can happen when we don't... plus what can happen when we do. Little thing called the Olympics and all.

Bassic Lab
Sep 13, 2009, 3:01 AM
Every argument against public funding of an arena can also be used against public funding of art galleries, museums, science centres, zoos, theatres, etc. Would your life REALLY change if the Bow museum left? Would you leave Calgary over it?

Pro sports fall into the same cultural category, bring in the same kind of tourism, and give a city the same cachet on the national/world stage.

I mean, unless you don't like sports. Much as I couldn't give a shit about ballet or opera - but at least I recognize the importance of supporting a diverse cultural and entertainment scene.

Museums rarely request a brand new, half billion dollar facility every quarter century. If the Glenbow tried it would be laughed out of the room.

As much as I enjoy hockey it simply is not on the same level as the things you mentioned. It is a for profit enterprise, no one makes money from museums.

freeweed
Sep 13, 2009, 3:23 AM
As much as I enjoy hockey it simply is not on the same level as the things you mentioned. It is a for profit enterprise, no one makes money from museums.

Hockey often doesn't make a profit either, just look at Phoenix. ;)

I guess in my mind the biggest thing is "how many people benefit" when it comes to spending public dollars. We have no problem with tax money going to things a small number of people use (most cultural facilities, let's face it, are not used by the masses) and yet there's a huge uproar over spending money on something that 20,000 people attend every night.

Yume-sama
Sep 13, 2009, 11:41 AM
Hockey often doesn't make a profit either, just look at Phoenix. ;)

I guess in my mind the biggest thing is "how many people benefit" when it comes to spending public dollars. We have no problem with tax money going to things a small number of people use (most cultural facilities, let's face it, are not used by the masses) and yet there's a huge uproar over spending money on something that 20,000 people attend every night.

:frog: Plus with the price of concessions you'd think the city would make it back in tax dollars in one night. :haha:

Also, actually attracting concerts, and etc., to come to Calgary would be a boost.

SubwayRev
Sep 13, 2009, 1:19 PM
Every argument against public funding of an arena can also be used against public funding of art galleries, museums, science centres, zoos, theatres, etc. Would your life REALLY change if the Bow museum left? Would you leave Calgary over it?

Pro sports fall into the same cultural category, bring in the same kind of tourism, and give a city the same cachet on the national/world stage.

I mean, unless you don't like sports. Much as I couldn't give a shit about ballet or opera - but at least I recognize the importance of supporting a diverse cultural and entertainment scene.

Fantastic point. The Calgary Zoo has received 100's of millions in public funding over the past ten years, and the Jubilee had $90 million worth of renovations in 2005.

Yume-sama
Sep 13, 2009, 1:49 PM
Heh, I have been to all of those places only once, and I've lived in Calgary for 20 years.

Well, the Glenbow Museum once... Jubilee... once... the Zoo, maybe twice? Science centre once! I didn't even know we had other museums...

So... valid point :P

And I'm a Flames STH, so, I'm a little biased... I would love a new arena to bring us up to a certain standard set by any arena built in the last 10 - 15 years.

Innersoul1
Sep 14, 2009, 9:04 PM
Is it possible to build a parkade under an arena, of all the pictures i've seen of stadiums and arenas i've only seen them with huge parking lots surrounding them. With the exception of MSG.

Coulden't they do this with a new arena in Calgary, and use the space that would have been parking, for something that contributes to the area?

I'm thinking about the impact that a huge parking lot would have on the stampede trail development, if the arena did infact get built there, but there were acres of parking lot behind it.

this also applies to the round up centre, why didn't they build parking underneath?

I did a little research, nothing too in depth and the only arena I could find with underground parking was the American Airlines Arena in Miami. I don't see why it would be impossible or hard to do, however, I am not a structural engineer. Likely, you would not want underground parking directly under the arena surface due to loads and such. But if the underground parking was built in to the surrounding structure it might work. I imagine that part of the issue may also be timelines. The time and cost to excavate and then consturct a large underground parkade befitting of a venue such as an arena is considerable. Most teams are concerned with the speed at which an arena can be constructed. ( am I just going on?)

I still think that it would be a SOLID nightmare to get out of the underground lot after an event. That being said, I am sure there would be numerous fans willing to pay big bucks to park their vehicles in the warmth of an underground lot. It could be a serious cash cow.

I agree that it would be a nice change to the surroundings of modern day stadia.

freeweed
Sep 14, 2009, 9:11 PM
The nice thing about the sea of parking surrounding the Saddledome is that it gives plenty of room for the midway and other things put up during Stampede. It would be pretty hard to justify all that open land throughout the rest of the year otherwise. You could have acres of greenspace, but it would be destroyed by the midway.

polishavenger
Sep 14, 2009, 10:07 PM
I did a little research, nothing too in depth and the only arena I could find with underground parking was the American Airlines Arena in Miami. I don't see why it would be impossible or hard to do, however, I am not a structural engineer. Likely, you would not want underground parking directly under the arena surface due to loads and such. But if the underground parking was built in to the surrounding structure it might work. I imagine that part of the issue may also be timelines. The time and cost to excavate and then consturct a large underground parkade befitting of a venue such as an arena is considerable. Most teams are concerned with the speed at which an arena can be constructed. ( am I just going on?)

I still think that it would be a SOLID nightmare to get out of the underground lot after an event. That being said, I am sure there would be numerous fans willing to pay big bucks to park their vehicles in the warmth of an underground lot. It could be a serious cash cow.

I agree that it would be a nice change to the surroundings of modern day stadia.

Not being an engineer, I could be wrong in what I am about to say. Firstly, if parking can be built under a 60 storey sky scraper, it can be build under a stadium. The only issue would be how many columns and how far apart they need to be. Since parking doesnt need wide open spans like say office space of bleachers, I can imagine they could build several floors of parking under a stadium. Secondly the area directly under the arena surface (Im thinking you mean the field/rink) would have the smallest loads and the greatest loads would be under the bleachers. Thirdly, getting out would be just as much of a pain in the ass as surface, the only difference is you need proper ventilation so that idling engines dont suffocate everyone. I would think you would need at least four entrances/exits, one on each side of the block

Jay in Cowtown
Sep 15, 2009, 3:34 AM
I guess in my mind the biggest thing is "how many people benefit" when it comes to spending public dollars. We have no problem with tax money going to things a small number of people use (most cultural facilities, let's face it, are not used by the masses) and yet there's a huge uproar over spending money on something that 20,000 people attend every night.

I agree completely... a few tax dollars going towards a great facility for years to come versus the Winnipeg Syndrome of a pro hockey town with no pro hockey. I know what I'd choose!

freeweed
Sep 15, 2009, 4:13 AM
Thirdly, getting out would be just as much of a pain in the ass as surface, the only difference is you need proper ventilation so that idling engines dont suffocate everyone. I would think you would need at least four entrances/exits, one on each side of the block

Except multiply your pain by the number of levels of parking. On the surface, a lot can clear out in 4 directions.. per lot. Stack 6 lots on top of each other, and you're still limited to 4 exits.

One thing I've always been impressed about the Stampede grounds is how quickly the parking lots empty out after Flames games, compared to just about anywhere else I've been. Not sure how much is due to fluke of design (it's a huge parking area, really, separated by many buildings) and how much is just the volume of people walking/C-training it, but either way it's amazing. Even the best planned US parking lots take longer to clear - and yes, I'm talking after a hockey game, and they don't exactly sell out too often down there (and EVERYONE drives).

EastVanMark
Sep 15, 2009, 8:17 AM
Is it possible to build a parkade under an arena, of all the pictures i've seen of stadiums and arenas i've only seen them with huge parking lots surrounding them. With the exception of MSG.

Coulden't they do this with a new arena in Calgary, and use the space that would have been parking, for something that contributes to the area?

I'm thinking about the impact that a huge parking lot would have on the stampede trail development, if the arena did infact get built there, but there were acres of parking lot behind it.

this also applies to the round up centre, why didn't they build parking underneath?

Just for the record, GM Place in Vancouver has a 2 or 3 level parkade under the arena floor and it works fine with just 2 exits

SubwayRev
Sep 15, 2009, 3:40 PM
The Verizon Center in Washington has underground parking as well.

I don't think there's an engineering issue with putting the parking underground. Ice level at Madison Square Garden is four floors above the street, and there's a ~3000 seat auditorium underneath, and North America's busiest train station underneath that.

Coldrsx
Sep 16, 2009, 9:31 PM
FYI... there will be an interesting panel discussion tonight on Downtown arenas and public funding for said facilities on both the Edmonton and Calgary Access ( channel 9 edm/13 cal) tonight at 7 and 11pm.

... you might even recognize a guest;)

Coldrsx
Sep 17, 2009, 6:03 PM
link to panel discussion on Alberta Arena funding

http://www.albertaprimetime.com/Default.aspx?FlashVars=Video/PT_Arenas.flv

lubicon
Sep 21, 2009, 9:57 PM
From the Globe and Mail

Saddledome sponsorship deal could ride off into sunset

Calgary's most visible corporate nameplate may come up for grabs next summer as sponsor mulls a possible exit from the venue's naming rights

BY NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE CALGARY

Last updated on Monday, Sep. 21, 2009 03:29AM EDT


Calgary's most visible corporate nameplate may come up for grabs next summer as the Alberta businessman who made his company the Saddledome's chief sponsor mulls a possible exit from the venue's naming rights.

Jim Kinnear, whose Pengrowth Management Ltd. bought rights to the Pengrowth Saddledome in 2000, is pondering giving up the high profile sponsorship, sources close to the company said.

The seeds of a potential exit were sown this summer, when Mr. Kinnear's long-time association with Pengrowth Energy Trust, (PGF.UN-T9.760.030.31%) a multibillion-dollar company he founded, began to wane. Mr. Kinnear's company had for many years held a management contract with the trust. But that contract, worth an average of $8-million a year in the past three years, came to an end in June. Then Mr. Kinnear retired as chairman and chief executive officer of Pengrowth Energy Corp., which administers the trust, last week. He remains a director.

Asked whether he will continue the Saddledome sponsorship, now that his ties to the company are much diminished, he replied: “A very good question.”

“We had the naming rights there for 10 years. It's up for renewal June 30. And we're just considering options,” he said. “Hopefully we've been able to contribute to a very strong franchise, a very strong operation in the past. But then we have to see what we do going forward.”

Mr. Kinnear said a decision on whether to maintain the naming rights remains a “work in progress.” However, he said he plans to use a new name, rather than Pengrowth, for future ventures, to avoid confusing his company with the public company it is no longer tied to.

For its part, Pengrowth Energy Trust is not interested in assuming the naming rights, said vice-president and chief of staff Jim Donihee. The trust “has indicated that we don't have an intention to carry that on,” he said. The naming rights “actually belonged to Jim anyways. It's his decision as to whether he wants to enter into negotiations with the Flames and carry that forward or not.”

A well-known Calgary philanthropist, Mr. Kinnear has never made public how much the naming contract is worth. It was signed a year after Air Canada paid $40-million in a 20-year deal for the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, and came as a huge boost to the then-struggling Flames.

The contract included an agreement by Mr. Kinnear's company to buy 200 season tickets annually.

Flames president Ken King has said the naming rights are of “enormous” importance as a stable source of revenue.

In a brief interview, Mr. King declined to comment on whether Mr. Kinnear's company has renewed the naming contract.

“That's obviously confidential information,” he said. “We have a fully executed agreement with them. They've been exceptional naming rights partners and we're thrilled to be continuing on with them.”

Tough economic times could make it more difficult for companies, especially those in the hard-hit oil patch that have typically sponsored Calgary institutions, to spend the millions to get their name on a venue like the Saddledome, said Todd Hirsch, senior economist with ATB Financial.

“We're still at a very weak point in the cycle here, and companies in Alberta are going to be examining every cent that goes out the door,” he said. “They're going to have to be really certain that this is going to give them some return. And that may or may not be the case with [a] high-profile sponsorship like this.”

Natural gas companies have been especially hammered by the downturn. Banks, however, have done sufficiently well that Bank of Montreal unveiled a major Calgary Stampede sponsorship this July. And the revival of crude prices has put oil companies on solid enough footing that they may consider a major sponsorship, said Adam Legge, chief economist at Calgary Economic Development.

“When you begin to see signs of recovery, that's when it's strategic to begin some of your marketing, so you're positioned well on the upside,” he said.

“It's just a matter of, are companies still realizing that as part of their brand strategy? I really don't know whether it's as popular as it used to be.”


Link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/saddledome-sponsorship-deal-could-ride-off-into-sunset/article1294884/

Bigtime
Sep 21, 2009, 10:08 PM
Calgarypuck thread on the Saddledome name:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=79645

Doug
Sep 21, 2009, 10:16 PM
Not being an engineer, I could be wrong in what I am about to say. Firstly, if parking can be built under a 60 storey sky scraper, it can be build under a stadium. The only issue would be how many columns and how far apart they need to be. Since parking doesnt need wide open spans like say office space of bleachers, I can imagine they could build several floors of parking under a stadium. Secondly the area directly under the arena surface (Im thinking you mean the field/rink) would have the smallest loads and the greatest loads would be under the bleachers. Thirdly, getting out would be just as much of a pain in the ass as surface, the only difference is you need proper ventilation so that idling engines dont suffocate everyone. I would think you would need at least four entrances/exits, one on each side of the block

I would suspect the water table would be a huge problem on the Stampede grounds given the location in a loop in the Elbow River.

Doug
Sep 21, 2009, 10:19 PM
:frog: Plus with the price of concessions you'd think the city would make it back in tax dollars in one night. :haha:

Also, actually attracting concerts, and etc., to come to Calgary would be a boost.

The City wouldn't earn any tax dollars from the arena. Most of the scams that US pro sports teams pull from municipalities typically involve no rent, all concession revenues and revenue from non sporting events like concerts. At least in the US, the municipality would earn some sales tax revenue. In Calgary, only the Feds would benefit (in terms of GST).

sim
Sep 21, 2009, 10:27 PM
Hockey often doesn't make a profit either, just look at Phoenix. ;)

I guess in my mind the biggest thing is "how many people benefit" when it comes to spending public dollars. We have no problem with tax money going to things a small number of people use (most cultural facilities, let's face it, are not used by the masses) and yet there's a huge uproar over spending money on something that 20,000 people attend every night.



This is a pretty good point, but I think it might also be necessary to qualify the said benefits: Obviously this is always going to be somewhat subjective. However, for the most part, things like museums, art galleries, etc are benefits that are (hopefully) meant to broaden and stimulate our minds; make us smarter and so on, whereas the benefits of a new rink are mostly for entertainment. Although there are certainly benefits from how it is able to bring a community together and give people a common ground.

My point being not that it necessarily shouldn't be funded, just that it maybe shouldn't be funded and compared to those other types of facilities that do.

jeffwhit
Sep 22, 2009, 6:30 AM
I wonder how much (of at all) the talk of the Flames building a new arena would diminish the price/cachet of the Saddledome naming rights.

lubicon
Sep 22, 2009, 3:03 PM
I wonder how much (of at all) the talk of the Flames building a new arena would diminish the price/cachet of the Saddledome naming rights.

I suppose it would depend on whether those naming rights would move over to the new building if and when it is built.

Riise
Sep 22, 2009, 3:21 PM
I suppose it would depend on whether those naming rights would move over to the new building if and when it is built.

Personally, I think an exit-clause triggered by the Flames moving to a new arena would be more likely to be included in the agreement/deal than a transfer of naming rights. I'm no lawyer though, that would be my sisters, just trying to think like one.

jeffwhit
Sep 23, 2009, 4:03 AM
^^I didn't even tink of that, thanks guys.

hrisemiky
Nov 12, 2009, 10:37 PM
we need a new football stadium

Calgarian
Nov 12, 2009, 10:48 PM
Yes we do, though it won't happen for a long long time.

MalcolmTucker
Nov 12, 2009, 10:57 PM
Personally, I think an exit-clause triggered by the Flames moving to a new arena would be more likely to be included in the agreement/deal than a transfer of naming rights. I'm no lawyer though, that would be my sisters, just trying to think like one.

Since the Flames lease the Dome, they cannot by law sell rights, even naming rights outside of the term of the lease. Therefor, if they move when they plan to, for the fall 2014 season (if my memory is correct) when their lease is up there should be no issue.

New stadium = new naming rights to sell.

Riise
Nov 23, 2009, 1:26 PM
I hate these types of designs, basically a throwback to modernist disasters like Olympic Stadium in Montreal. While they look great from a distance, they are stark and oppressive close up. Target Field in Minneapolis is far better.

I understand what you are saying and I'd like to reiterate that I simply drew inspiration from the Arena Zagreb, mainly from the white orbish building inside th rib cage. While I use to be preoccupied with the multifunctionality of sporting venues and how they can be apart of the urban fabric, the appeal of arenas and stadiums as pieces of art incorporated into their urban surrounds has grown on me. The inspiration I have taken from Arena Zagreb has lead to an interesting idea for an arena as an art piece in Calgary in my head, I really need to obtain the assistance of one of my architect friends to extract it from my mind.

Anyway, here are some examples of what I believe to be a good job of placing stadia in and integrating them with urban areas. Although I hate Sp*rs, they might be onto something with their New White Heart Lane:

External view looking eastwards, the new residential development is visible to the right
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/gallery/futurePlans/NDP_-_night_aeriel_view.jpg

The new 'fan' square
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/gallery/futurePlans/NDP_-_south_west_view.jpg

Non-matchday view of the stadium in winter with ice-rink
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/gallery/futurePlans/NDP_-_Non_Matchday_Winter_View.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/gallery/futurePlans/NDP_-_south_west_view_up_the_high_road.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/gallery/futurePlans/View_across_public_square.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/gallery/futurePlans/View_of_Housing_from_Park_Lane.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/gallery/futurePlans/Possible_uses_of_the_public_square_-_a_performance_taking_place.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/gallery/futurePlans/Possible_uses_of_the_public_square_-_a_street_market.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/gallery/futurePlans/Rear_view_of_supermarket.jpg

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/assets/gallery/futurePlans/NDP_-_north_west_view_down_the_High_Road.jpg

Link to Nick Taylor's New White Heart Lane Post (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4526566&postcount=192).

jeffwhit
Nov 24, 2009, 7:59 PM
^^That stadium will suck. Mainly because Spurs'll be playing there.

jsbertram
Nov 25, 2009, 7:06 AM
Why not build on the West Village area (Greyhound, GSL Chevy, Renfrew Chrysler)

Build a new McMahon stadium and a new Flames arena there. It already has Bow Tr and Crowchild Tr (although the interchange will need serious upgrades), and the West LRT.

Redevelop the old McMahon site as housing to pay for everything.

Distill3d
Nov 25, 2009, 7:18 AM
Why not build on the West Village area (Greyhound, GSL Chevy, Renfrew Chrysler)

Build a new McMahon stadium and a new Flames arena there. It already has Bow Tr and Crowchild Tr (although the interchange will need serious upgrades), and the West LRT.

Redevelop the old McMahon site as housing to pay for everything.

Thats been suggested a few times. There seems to be some support for it, but the odds seem to be against it and in favor of the Stampede Grounds.

GoflamesGo
Nov 25, 2009, 7:42 AM
seems odd that vancouver got the covered stadium and we got a windy open air stadium.

Distill3d
Nov 25, 2009, 8:12 AM
seems odd that vancouver got the covered stadium and we got a windy open air stadium.

It seems kind of odd that BC Place is getting a retractable roof, and the Lions are playing outdoors at the old Empire Stadium next season.

fatboy
Nov 25, 2009, 12:15 PM
It seems kind of odd that BC Place is getting a retractable roof, and the Lions are playing outdoors at the old Empire Stadium next season.

Even more odd...the cost of the roof is 7x times the cost of the original stadium...yours and mine(tax dollars)paying for it.
Whoever Whines the most gets the $$$.

freeweed
Nov 25, 2009, 2:54 PM
seems odd that vancouver got the covered stadium and we got a windy open air stadium.

Rain. 'nuff sed.

Plus, Calgarians are just tougher.

rrskylar
Nov 25, 2009, 3:19 PM
It seems kind of odd that BC Place is getting a retractable roof, and the Lions are playing outdoors at the old Empire Stadium next season.

Wasn't the old empire stadium demolished already?

Distill3d
Nov 25, 2009, 3:35 PM
Wasn't the old empire stadium demolished already?

Yes, and the city has refurbished the field to a baseball diamond/soccer field. however, they're being innovative and using the seating from the Olympic venues to make it into a 25,000 seat outdoor stadium. Should be something else to see.

lubicon
Nov 25, 2009, 4:30 PM
Why not build on the West Village area (Greyhound, GSL Chevy, Renfrew Chrysler)

Build a new McMahon stadium and a new Flames arena there. It already has Bow Tr and Crowchild Tr (although the interchange will need serious upgrades), and the West LRT.

Redevelop the old McMahon site as housing to pay for everything.

Can't do that (I believe). The U of C owns McMahon and/or the land that it sits on.

DizzyEdge
Nov 25, 2009, 5:45 PM
Can't do that (I believe). The U of C owns McMahon and/or the land that it sits on.

U of C should use the land to create some sort of student housing/retail district for the university crowd, I always feel bad for them that the only local amenities are 2 malls and whatever the current name of that club by 53 St is.

MalcolmTucker
Nov 25, 2009, 6:03 PM
U of C should use the land to create some sort of student housing/retail district for the university crowd, I always feel bad for them that the only local amenities are 2 malls and whatever the current name of that club by 53 St is.

There are rather wide restrictions on commercial use of university land from the original land grant that don't apply to west campus. The province is rather stickler about avoiding UBC style development, or at least that is what I was told while dealing with the University Architect / Planner back when I was there.

DizzyEdge
Nov 25, 2009, 7:19 PM
There are rather wide restrictions on commercial use of university land from the original land grant that don't apply to west campus. The province is rather stickler about avoiding UBC style development, or at least that is what I was told while dealing with the University Architect / Planner back when I was there.

Ah, well in that case hopefully the Brentwood/Motel Village redevelopment plans can help out with that then.

jsbertram
Nov 25, 2009, 9:03 PM
seems odd that vancouver got the covered stadium and we got a windy open air stadium.

When BC Place was built, the Big Owe in Montreal was still an unfinshed expensive controversy.
A friend remarked recently that for the amount spent on The Big Owe, a BCPlace could have been built in every province and the Yukon.

jsbertram
Nov 25, 2009, 9:26 PM
It seems kind of odd that BC Place is getting a retractable roof, and the Lions are playing outdoors at the old Empire Stadium next season.

The old Empire Stadium was demolished quite a few years ago but the field itself was recently fixed up, so there will be temporary stands built (think Stampede Parade route bleachers - only larger).

Someone seems to have forgotten IT RAINS in Vancouver, but making BCPlace open-air is a key part of the deal for getting the MLS soccer franchise in 2011.

Nobody is saying too much about the new MLS soccer stadium that is planned for the harbourfront (east of Canada Place and north of Gastown on top of the CPR tracks) that the Whitecaps and the MLS franchise will be moving to in 2016.

Just to make it clear: $500+ million to build a partially-retractible roof on BCPlace so MLS Soccer has a place to play for 5 years before moving to their own open-air stadium.

If the BCPlace reno takes longer than expected (and we know it will), the BC Lions and the MLS team would have to stay at Empire Grounds until BCPlace is ready.

jsbertram
Nov 25, 2009, 9:35 PM
I would suspect the water table would be a huge problem on the Stampede grounds given the location in a loop in the Elbow River.

You wouldn't want to dig an underground parkade, but you can build a high building.
How high is the Grandstand?
When I was in Madison Square Garden, you wouldn't know that it was built 4 stories high over a railway yard & the busiest commuter station in the US.

However, The Stampede Grounds aren't pinched for space, so why build a parkade under an arena, when there are acres of parking around it (and LRT access too)?

jsbertram
Nov 25, 2009, 9:41 PM
Rain. 'nuff sed.

Plus, Calgarians are just tougher.

real football fans always take a thermos of coffee and another of hot chocolate to the game.

jsbertram
Nov 25, 2009, 9:47 PM
Hmmm...

West Village redeveloped as UofC Downtown campus, Stampeders Stadium & condos.

McMahon Stadium site redeveloped as UofC campus expansion

lubicon
Nov 25, 2009, 10:29 PM
The old Empire Stadium was demolished quite a few years ago but the field itself was recently fixed up, so there will be temporary stands built (think Stampede Parade route bleachers - only larger).

Someone seems to have forgotten IT RAINS in Vancouver, but making BCPlace open-air is a key part of the deal for getting the MLS soccer franchise in 2011.

Nobody is saying too much about the new MLS soccer stadium that is planned for the harbourfront (east of Canada Place and north of Gastown on top of the CPR tracks) that the Whitecaps and the MLS franchise will be moving to in 2016.

Just to make it clear: $500+ million to build a partially-retractible roof on BCPlace so MLS Soccer has a place to play for 5 years before moving to their own open-air stadium.

If the BCPlace reno takes longer than expected (and we know it will), the BC Lions and the MLS team would have to stay at Empire Grounds until BCPlace is ready.

It rains in Seattle too and that didn't stop them from building a new open air stadium for the Seahawks a few years ago.

MalcolmTucker
Nov 26, 2009, 12:52 AM
If Calgary was to replace McMahon, I think a stadium closer to QWest than the new Cowboy's Stadium would be best. Part of the appeal is being outside!

Jay in Cowtown
Nov 26, 2009, 12:56 AM
A friend told me yesterday that he heard Eric Francis talking on the radio about huge plans for a massive McMahon Stadium renovation... anyone else hear anything about this?

Jay in Cowtown
Nov 26, 2009, 1:03 AM
If Calgary was to replace McMahon, I think a stadium closer to QWest than the new Cowboy's Stadium would be best. Part of the appeal is being outside!

Agreed, somewhere in the east village with the open end of a 50 000 seat horseshoe stadium facing the Bow would be absolutely outstanding!

Even retractable roof stadiums don't have the atmosphere of the open air ones, IMHO.

mersar
Nov 26, 2009, 1:05 AM
A friend told me yesterday that he heard Eric Francis talking on the radio about huge plans for a massive McMahon Stadium renovation... anyone else hear anything about this?

Pretty unlikely to see anything major beyond the reno's they did this past year unless a corporate sponsor steps up to foot the bill as the U of C sure can't afford it right now.

Distill3d
Nov 26, 2009, 1:51 AM
The old Empire Stadium was demolished quite a few years ago but the field itself was recently fixed up, so there will be temporary stands built (think Stampede Parade route bleachers - only larger).

Someone seems to have forgotten IT RAINS in Vancouver, but making BCPlace open-air is a key part of the deal for getting the MLS soccer franchise in 2011.

Nobody is saying too much about the new MLS soccer stadium that is planned for the harbourfront (east of Canada Place and north of Gastown on top of the CPR tracks) that the Whitecaps and the MLS franchise will be moving to in 2016.

Just to make it clear: $500+ million to build a partially-retractible roof on BCPlace so MLS Soccer has a place to play for 5 years before moving to their own open-air stadium.

If the BCPlace reno takes longer than expected (and we know it will), the BC Lions and the MLS team would have to stay at Empire Grounds until BCPlace is ready.

Thats because that proposal is pretty much dead in the water at the moment due to land issues.

As for the rain, yeah, it rains here, but it was actually built to add more convention space in prep for Expo 86. Its also used for conventions, concerts, an indoor amusement park, and other events, contributing close to 60 million/year to our local economy. So, really, the Whitecaps moving to a new stadium a couple years after moving in, isn't really going to have much of an impact at all on BC Place's bottom line.


If Calgary was to get a new stadium to replace McMahon, something along the lines of the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale would be awesome.

KONYS
Nov 26, 2009, 2:26 AM
OT, but University of Phoenix Stadium only cost $455mil to build. I know that is waaay more than would ever be spent here, but it is pretty incredible that they built a hell of a stadium with some really innovative features for half of what the Cowboys spent.

Joborule
Nov 26, 2009, 5:44 AM
I don't think CFL is popular enough in Calgary to warrant a state of the art football stadium that you see in the NFL. We more likely would pull off something like Qwest Feild in Seatle, INVESCO Field at Mile High in Denver, or if they really want to have a retractable roof though, something like Reliant Stadium in Houston. Something with 40,000 capacity with room to expand if situation rises in the future.

But the Stamps do need to find something new and more modern hopefully somewhere downtown. And actually have a hospitality environment for the concession stands!

KONYS
Nov 26, 2009, 5:48 AM
All of those stadiums are way beyond what Calgary could ever build. Reliant is one of the nicest stadiums in North America too. Its nice to dream, but realistically we would be lucky to even get something like ALLTEL in Jacksonville.

Joborule
Nov 26, 2009, 6:01 AM
All of those stadiums are way beyond what Calgary could ever build. Reliant is one of the nicest stadiums in North America too. Its nice to dream, but realistically we would be lucky to even get something like ALLTEL in Jacksonville.
Ya I guess I made it sound like state of the art still. :D I meant to imply a sort of concept to follow, but not a full replica of whats stored in it. Make it look nice and that it's housing a professional sports team at least.

Innersoul1
Nov 26, 2009, 9:27 PM
We need to start looking at College Stadia in the US for inspiration. There is a lot more reasonable architecture to work with there.

BFHeadstone
Nov 26, 2009, 9:52 PM
We need to start looking at College Stadia in the US for inspiration. There is a lot more reasonable architecture to work with there.

A lot of College teams in the US make more money than their NFL counterparts... ;)

Innersoul1
Nov 26, 2009, 10:04 PM
A lot of College teams in the US make more money than their NFL counterparts... ;)

Agreed but by many means their stadia are much more humble.

Even the MLS are developing some quality soccer specific stadia. For example the new Red Bull Arena in NY. Although it only has a capacity of 25,000 and expanded version may make sense.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/RedBull-Aerial-People_copyright_SM.jpg

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 1:56 AM
Congratulations to Winnipeg (almost 500,00 peolpe less than Calgary) on announcing their new stadium. Shame on Calgary for having a 5th rate stadium (at best).

The fact it is part of the U of C (as I understand it) is the death knell, having a female president at the U of C is the second death knell for an improved stadium.

It really is a disgrace but I am afraid we are stuck with it. Good for you Winnipeg!!!!

Wooster
Apr 1, 2010, 1:58 AM
Congratulations to Winnipeg (almost 500,00 peolpe less than Calgary) on announcing their new stadium. Shame on Calgary for having a 5th rate stadium (at best).

The fact it is part of the U of C (as I understand it) is the death knell, having a female president at the U of C is the second death knell for an improved stadium.

It really is a disgrace but I am afraid we are stuck with it. Good for you Winnipeg!!!!

ummm, excuse me?

thurmas
Apr 1, 2010, 2:06 AM
Being a winnipeger is there any plans for any renos for mcmahon for you guys because everbody is passing you by when it comes to stadium improvements. New stadium Regina, New stadium Winnipeg, complete renovation Ottawa, 5000 more seats and reno Montreal, $400 million reno BC , new turf and field house Edmonton.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 1, 2010, 2:25 AM
I like the old style stadium (and that is saying a lot seeing that all the seats are a bit uncomfortable due to my height!). For a stadium that is used maybe 15 times a year in a good year for big crowds, I think it is perfectly fine. I think in the future maybe make it a full bowl if need the capacity (if for example you took out seats to add boxes) is needed.

I know the argonauts would kill to have a stadium like McMahon. Plus, there is no way a football stadium can be justified by economic impact unless you are going to go all out and enclose it and use the floor for convention space (with pull back bleachers) and for large concerts. Our FCs barely make money, a stadium would be a total vanity project.

freeweed
Apr 1, 2010, 2:48 AM
ummm, excuse me?

Duh, women can't understand sports. This is clearly obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot.

Duh.

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 3:19 AM
ummm, excuse me?

My point is that I don't hold out much hope for anything involving sports based on a women whose only interest as dean of engineering was promoting women in science. Please look into her time at the U of C and anything remotely close to sports is not in her plans.

We need a new stadium. McMohan Stadium is a disgrace for a regional area of 1.2 million.

I am not saying women do not appreciate or understand sports, just that I am sure it's the last priority on her list (assuming she is even aware of it)! Please read before you judge!!!!

Wooster
Apr 1, 2010, 3:22 AM
I wasn't aware the dean of engineering's job description was supposed to involve sports. Promoting women in engineering seems like a worthy pursuit, and totally unrelated to an interest in sports or improving athletic facilities.
Sorry, but your characterization and assumptions are pure sexism.

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 3:28 AM
I like the old style stadium (and that is saying a lot seeing that all the seats are a bit uncomfortable due to my height!). For a stadium that is used maybe 15 times a year in a good year for big crowds, I think it is perfectly fine. I think in the future maybe make it a full bowl if need the capacity (if for example you took out seats to add boxes) is needed.

I know the argonauts would kill to have a stadium like McMahon. Plus, there is no way a football stadium can be justified by economic impact unless you are going to go all out and enclose it and use the floor for convention space (with pull back bleachers) and for large concerts. Our FCs barely make money, a stadium would be a total vanity project.

I don't disagee, but McMahon is a bit of a dump, it's a disgrace for a city of 1.2 million. I really think we should expect, and deserve something better than an stadium that is right out of the 50's

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 3:29 AM
I wasn't aware the dean of engineering's job description was supposed to involve sports. Promoting women in engineering seems like a worthy pursuit, and totally unrelated to an interest in sports or improving athletic facilities.
Sorry, but your characterization and assumptions are pure sexism.

And her's wasn't? I have a son and daughter, I don't want either one discriminated against, but she set up a site about women in science, what about the U setting up a site about men in other faculties dominated by women. Why did that not happen? Like a web site at the U of C supportig men would ever happen. E-mail me and I will gladly discuss this with you.

Any ways, I just think we need a new stadium which I would love to see. We can deal with the other stuff off-line.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 1, 2010, 3:35 AM
I don't disagee, but McMahon is a bit of a dump, it's a disgrace for a city of 1.2 million. I really think we should expect, and deserve something better that an stadium that is right out of the 50's
I bet you just hate the Yale Bowl, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, or Notre Dame Stadium. So old and basic. No field length HDTV.

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 3:44 AM
Any ways, congrats to Winnipeg. I know they will do a great job of it.

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 3:48 AM
I bet you just hate the Yale Bowl, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, or Notre Dame Stadium. So old and basic. No field length HDTV.

I have not been there but I bet they are much more iconic, and likely not as gruby as McMahon. My point is that McMahon is really outdated (unless it gets major upgrades). However, I really hope it willl be replaced. Why are you guys so opposed to a new stadiumÉ McMahon really is quite bad!

fusili
Apr 1, 2010, 4:11 AM
ummm, excuse me?

I echo that statement.

I guess as a dean of engineering she didn't do much for arts, social sciences or humanities either. Maybe this was because it was not part of her job description. Would you make the same claim if a male dean of engineering who spent his career promoting investment into high tech research was promoted to president? Would you say he has no priority for sports? Sorry, I don't put up with comments like that, and I echo Wooster on this one.

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 4:21 AM
I echo that statement.

I guess as a dean of engineering she didn't do much for arts, social sciences or humanities either. Maybe this was because it was not part of her job description. Would you make the same claim if a male dean of engineering who spent his career promoting investment into high tech research was promoted to president? Would you say he has no priority for sports? Sorry, I don't put up with comments like that, and I echo Wooster on this one.

You have no right to define what you can put up with or not. I agree this is not the forum for it, but I wil gladly discuss this off-line but you have no right to say who has has right to say something as you protest!

I don't ever reacall a dean of engeenering, or any other faculty, setting up a web site supporting men. I really fear for my son based on what I am hearing! Have you ever see a web site at the U of C encouraging men in any way what so ever? Then why is one encouraging women OK? I can guarantee you that in today's world no man promoting anything male would get anywhere. Why are we so female oriented when we have both sons and daughters. PLEASE, take this off line so we can discuss it apart from this thread. Why are we men so apposed to our rights and welfare?

LFRENCH
Apr 1, 2010, 4:27 AM
As a UofC student, I'm totally fine with promoting women into the engineering faculty. On a side note I believe there is better things the University can spend money on than an aging McMahon Stadium.

CorporateWhore
Apr 1, 2010, 4:33 AM
I have a close family member who works in an administrative role at the U of C, and apparently a lot of people aren't very happy with the choice of president, especially considering the money and time spent on an international search. Apparently she's pissed off a ton of people in previous interactions and doesn't seem to work well with others. There is definitely sentiment that she was picked for her sex, not her abilities.

No idea about her love of sports though...

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 4:37 AM
Anyways, I would really like to see a new stadium for the Stamps. I think it would be a great thing and congrats to Winnipeg.

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 4:41 AM
I have a close family member who works in an administrative role at the U of C, and apparently a lot of people aren't very happy with the choice of president, especially considering the money and time spent on an international search. Apparently she's pissed off a ton of people in previous interactions and doesn't seem to work well with others. There is definitely sentiment that she was picked for her sex, not her abilities.

No idea about her love of sports though...

I hope she will do well for the U fo C (both genders) but in the final analysis, how you work and deal with others is the most important thing for all involved.

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 4:42 AM
As a UofC student, I'm totally fine with promoting women into the engineering faculty. On a side note I believe there is better things the University can spend money on than an aging McMahon Stadium.

Very true. I just hope there is another answer to a new stadium.

Wooster
Apr 1, 2010, 4:42 AM
There's nothing wrong with encouraging a group which was traditionally been a minority in a professional field to enter that field. There are usually reasons why something is dominated by one demographic - it could be stigma, it could be stereotyping, discrimination and so on. I don't know about U of C's nursing or Childcare programs, but I know there are lots of post-secondary institutions that actively encourage more males in these professions. These concerted efforts, in this case, are important to help overcome the stigma associated with men entering these traditionally female professions.

Either way, someone's support for women has nothing to do with whether or not she would support sports. Perhaps she's a rabid Stampeder's fan and doesn't like the stadium. The point is there's no way to actually guage this based on her actions as dean of engineering, or her being a woman.

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 4:50 AM
There's nothing wrong with encouraging a group which was traditionally been a minority in a professional field to enter that field. There are usually reasons why something is dominated by one demographic - it could be stigma, it could be stereotyping, discrimination and so on. I don't know about U of C's nursing or Childcare programs, but I know there are lots of post-secondary institutions that actively encourage more males in these professions. These concerted efforts, in this case, are important to help overcome the stigma associated with men entering these traditionally female professions.

Either way, someone's support for women has nothing to do with whether or not she would support sports. Perhaps she's a rabid Stampeder's fan and doesn't like the stadium. The point is there's no way to actually guage this based on her actions as dean of engineering, or her being a woman.

I just hope both genders are encouraged. As I mentioned, I have a son and daughter and don't want either discriminated against or hurt in their lives but I am beginning to worry about my sons chances. Our society seems to have become so female oriented. That is not intended to be sexist, only a fathers concern for his son.

Anyways, congrats to Winnipeg. I hope we won't be too far behind. If you haven't seen the plans, they look quite good.

PS: Go Flames GO!

fusili
Apr 1, 2010, 5:19 AM
I just hope both genders are encouraged. As I mentioned, I have a son and daughter and don't want either discriminated against or hurt in their lives but I am beginning to worry about my sons chances. Our society seems to have become so female oriented. That is not intended to be sexist, only a fathers concern for his son.

Anyways, congrats to Winnipeg. I hope we won't be too far behind. If you haven't seen the plans, they look quite good.

PS: Go Flames GO!

Your son won't be discriminated against. It is not like they are setting up quotas for new students based on gender. In fact, I would be worried about the social discrimination your daughter might face going into engineering, or your son into nursing, as Wooster pointed out. Encouraging women to go into engineering (an men into fields such as nursing, and hell, even into being a flight attendant) is breaking down barriers of discrimination, not putting up new ones. They are not saying men shouldn't go into engineering, but that women shouldn't feel a stigma for doing so. Stop fear mongering and thinking that this will somehow lead to discrimination against men.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 1, 2010, 12:02 PM
I hope she will do well for the U fo C (both genders) but in the final analysis, how you work and deal with others is the most important thing for all involved.

To be fair, the old President wasn't the easiest to work with either, and any change at all pisses off academics. She helped bring in the money to the Eng School, and will likely not need as much on the job training as someone from the outside would. A reasonable amount of focus on gender equity is ok, especially when many of the moves involved just generally making changes to improve student experiences.

frinkprof
Apr 1, 2010, 12:03 PM
I just hope both genders are encouraged. As I mentioned, I have a son and daughter and don't want either discriminated against or hurt in their lives but I am beginning to worry about my sons chances. Our society seems to have become so female oriented. That is not intended to be sexist, only a fathers concern for his son.Yeah I'm going to have to pile on here.

Here's some wikipedia articles you should read up on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine

These are the exact sentiments that eventually led (in part) to this tragedy.

There's no big anti-male conspiracy. There's no "female orientation" being created in Canadian engineering schools, post secondary institutions, or society as a whole.

As for Dr. Cannon, she is a brilliant researcher and has added a lot to her field. I should know, since we study some of her research papers as part of my classes. I can't speak to her tenure as Dean of Engineering, but I don't see promoting women in science and engineering as a strike against her.

Guess what? Every engineering school in the country does this in some capacity, no matter what gender their dean is. Many hold recruiting sessions at high schools specifically geared toward young women, have websites, student organizations, and cooperative efforts with professional engineering organizations all directed toward the goal of encouraging more females to enter the field. There is nothing wrong with that. It is still a male-dominated field, both in schools and in the professional world.

Sorry, but you're off base and out to lunch here.

--------------

As for McMahon Stadium, you pretty much summed it up in the first part of your first post actually.

The fact it is part of the U of C (as I understand it) is the death knell

Full stop.

It makes no financial sense for U of C to replace McMahon. Stadiums are expensive to build and maintain, and McMahon doesn't get enough use to even remotely justify it.

I've been saying all along that the best hope for a new stadium in Calgary is to host a large sporting event (Pan-Am Games, Commonwealth Games, or Olympic Games). Only a big event like that would be enough to justify a large piece of infrastructure like a replacement for McMahon Stadium in Calgary. The best part is that those events aren't exactly pie-in-the-sky. They are winnable for Calgary within the next 30 years and can be successful.

For the time being and the foreseeable future, McMahon Stadium is servicable for CFL and CIS football and hosting the Grey Cup every 5-10 years.

CorporateWhore
Apr 1, 2010, 12:50 PM
There's no big anti-male conspiracy. There's no "female orientation" being created in Canadian engineering schools, post secondary institutions, or society as a whole.

Gotta disagree on this one somewhat....there are several aspects of society where males are negatively looked upon and judged compared to women. It can range from the serious, like ignored domestic abuse against men, paternity/alimony discrimination where father's rights are way down the list.... to trivial issues like always having the husband on any sitcom be a complete moron.

In terms of education, making sure girls are getting a hand up has led to a lot of boys issues being ignored in the education system. Boys have lower literacy rates, lower grades, less engagement during school and higher drop-out rate, yet you don't see them being focused on.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/090701-boys-issues.html

I support giving girls a boost in areas where they need it, but you hardly ever see it happening on the other side. If you stand up for girls, you are a feminist. Try doing it for boys, and you are a chauvinist. Definitely doesn't work both ways.

Slug
Apr 1, 2010, 1:41 PM
Only on SSP can one read all about the issue of gender discrimination on a thread dealing with architecture/sports populated entirely(?) by men.

It is sort of like a man alcove inside of a man cave.

freeweed
Apr 1, 2010, 1:47 PM
Gotta disagree on this one somewhat....there are several aspects of society where males are negatively looked upon and judged compared to women. It can range from the serious, like ignored domestic abuse against men, paternity/alimony discrimination where father's rights are way down the list.... to trivial issues like always having the husband on any sitcom be a complete moron.

And there are many aspects of society where women are negatively looked upon. From men thinking all women primarily dream about being married and raising a family (this is still the predominant belief with 90% of the men I've known), to media images constantly portraying this as well, to women not being taken seriously in the workplace in many fields, to major, major amounts of domestic abuse... to trivial issues like assuming women can't have an interest in sports. That being what started this whole off-topic discussion, after all.

Which is why he said, specifically, "society as a whole".

As the ultimate stereotypical white, Canadian, straight, non-disabled male, let me just say that not once in my entire life have I ever been discriminated against, or even seen a hint of it in action. This perceived notion that helping women out somehow discriminates against men is both baffling, hilarious, and somewhat dangerous all at the same time. Been through university twice and never saw it - and believe me, when you do a computer-related degree, you REALLY understand why schools are trying to encourage women. I think we had a 1:20 ratio at best.

If anything, I get funny looks for not being married nor having kids, but that's about it. :P

CorporateWhore
Apr 1, 2010, 2:01 PM
Yep, that's pretty much always the reaction. "You think men have issues?, bah, women have it much worse, so your concerns aren't valid!". Just because one group has issues to deal with, it doesn't negate the validity others.

I didnt mention anywhere that I am against helping women (in fact I said the opposite), but it's pretty rare when you see specific attention to help out men. You might not have felt the negative effects, but that doesn't mean they don't exist (this is a pretty interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&hp)

While nothing compared to what some people go through, I've had my brush with things. I used to be stalked by this one girl for about 4-5 years, up to the point where she literally moved across the country to the city where I live and started monitoring my apartment building. I had always brushed it off (especially when she sent me birthday gifts, ha), but it got to the point where I was legitimately scared for my safety (this was a small girl, but she was fucking crazy and unstable, so I had no idea if she was carrying a gun). I went to the local police station to see if there was anything I could do about it, and I was literally laughed off by the first two cops I talked to. Funnily enough, it was the 3rd one who happened to be a woman, who was the only one who took me semi-seriously. There was jack-all I could do either way...."You're a man. Come back when something really happens".

thurmas
Apr 1, 2010, 2:02 PM
I don't think you need to replace mcmahon but it does need a $50 million renovation to compete with all the new and improving stadiums to generate revenue and keep fans coming. Mcmahon needs improved concessions and washrooms and new seats.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 1, 2010, 2:05 PM
^ I don't think boxes would pay for themselves, as for keeping the fans coming, sure you could use better washrooms, maybe some weather screening for the concourse, and upgraded concessions but should still be in the sub $20 million range.

frinkprof
Apr 1, 2010, 2:07 PM
I don't think you need to replace mcmahon but it does need a $50 million renovation to compete with all the new and improving stadiums to generate revenue and keep fans coming. Mcmahon needs improved concessions and washrooms and new seats.McMahon isn't competing with all the new and improving stadiums, because Calgarians and Stampeders fans aren't going to suddenly flock to the new Winnipeg stadium or the new Hamilton stadium to see a football game just because McMahon isn't as nice.

Secondly, it would probably generate more revenue upon being renovated, but how much? Enough to pay off the arbitrary $50 M used to do the renovations?

freeweed
Apr 1, 2010, 2:09 PM
Yep, that's pretty much always the reaction. "You think men have issues?, bah, women have it much worse, so your concerns aren't valid!". Just because one group has issues to deal with, it doesn't negate the validity others.

Not at all. What it DOES say is that both groups, men and women, have situations where they are (or at least feel) discriminated against.

The difference is, the second it happens with men, most of us get our backs up and start screaming about it. And implying that there's some big societal conspiracy to beat down whitey err I mean men. With women, they generally shrug their shoulders and just assume that's how things are.

No one with a brain is trying to invalidate issues men have. All we're saying is, don't act like because men have a couple of problems here or there that women have it easy and the world is catering to them. I once again point out to what started this whole thread in the first place - the implication that a woman cannot make rational decisions about sports. As soon as someone pointed out that this is a fallacy, you suddenly have half a dozen men getting all pretentious about it. Seriously, how can you possibly defend the original statement here? I should warn you before you answer, I live with a woman who has forgotten 10x the hockey knowledge you and I will ever have. ;)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway, on the topic (sorta) - rumour has it the NHL had people snooping around McMahon yesterday. That's a good sign we may see a winter classic game in January.

CorporateWhore
Apr 1, 2010, 2:22 PM
The difference is, the second it happens with men, most of us get our backs up and start screaming about it. And implying that there's some big societal conspiracy to beat down whitey err I mean men. With women, they generally shrug their shoulders and just assume that's how things are.


I guess it's opinion, but I think it's the opposite. I don't really see men standing up and shouting about their rights....hell, this is one of the few times I've even waded into this type of conversation.

Even if men were standing up for their right's, what's wrong with that? When women do it, it's called feminism. Why is there no positive word for when a man does it?

When it comes to legal rights at least, men get discriminated against, they are often the ones who have to shrug their shoulders and deal with it....read that article I posted, it's a pretty good read. You don't really see many, if any, marches for men's rights in cases of paternity issues, corporate-backed pro-men initiatives, proactive men's movements, men's shelters when they get abused by their spouses....

In the end, I guess it will always be a case of he said/she said though. This isn't really my cause though....so anyway.

freeweed
Apr 1, 2010, 2:35 PM
Even if men were standing up for their right's, what's wrong with that? When women do it, it's called feminism. Why is there no positive word for when a man does it?

When it comes to legal rights at least, men get discriminated against, they are often the ones who have to shrug their shoulders and deal with it....read that article I posted, it's a pretty good read. You don't really see many, if any, marches for men's rights in cases of paternity issues, corporate-backed pro-men initiatives, proactive men's movements, men's shelters when they get abused by their spouses....

For the same reason that the only groups "standing up" for white people's rights are pretty much extremist racist groups. Why that is is left as an exercise for the reader.

Wooster
Apr 1, 2010, 2:35 PM
^^ The conversation pertained most specifically to encouraging more women in a particular professional field that's male dominated. I posted an example of the opposite, and most directly relevant, which is female dominated professions like Nursing and Child Care encouraging more men to enter the field. Not sure if this debate easily translates into wider societal supports for men vs. women on domestic abuse or orther issues. I agree, on some issues, men do actually get the shaft and have to shrug their shoulders or internalize their problem, the one that started this debate just isn't one of them.

CorporateWhore
Apr 1, 2010, 2:36 PM
For the same reason that the only groups "standing up" for white people's rights are pretty much extremist racist groups. Why that is is left as an exercise for the reader.

So someone standing up for men's rights would be labeled an extremist? Kind of proves my point, nobody takes men's issues seriously.

CorporateWhore
Apr 1, 2010, 2:38 PM
^^ The conversation pertained most specifically to encouraging more women in a particular professional field that's male dominated. I posted an example of the opposite, and most directly relevant, which is female dominated professions like Nursing and Child Care encouraging more men to enter the field. Not sure if this debate easily translates into wider societal supports for men vs. women on domestic abuse or orther issues. I agree, on some issues, men do actually get the shaft and have to shrug their shoulders or internalize their problem, this just isn't one of them.

I don't think this UofC issues is a problem either....but there was a comment made that about "society in general", which is where I chose to speak up. Again, don't really care that much, but it seemed a little ignorant.

Wooster
Apr 1, 2010, 2:42 PM
Fair enough.

So.... arenas, and stuff.