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

Fuzz
Apr 22, 2016, 10:44 PM
I the city is reclaiming for themselves, they can choose the slower reclamation option, they can develop areas of it in phases, etc to spread costs over a longer period. If they have to basically excavate the entire area, I'm not sure why they wouldn't work a Bow realignment into it. Depending on how much they need to excavate for reclamation, it may evn make financial sense to bury it.

Suburgatory
Apr 23, 2016, 4:33 AM
Absolutely. And a large volume that has a larger vertical component also has implications, as the hotter air moves up, which either means you actively push it down continuously, or have to heat the space to a higher mean temperature so that fans and surface level is comfortable.

Why are you forcing hot air down in an ice rink?

suburbia
Apr 23, 2016, 4:39 AM
Why are you forcing hot air down in an ice rink?

Same reason you heat ice rinks in the first place. So it is comfortable for the thousands who pay to watch. Ice is cooled from below, not by cold air over top.

Suburgatory
Apr 23, 2016, 5:14 AM
Same reason you heat ice rinks in the first place. So it is comfortable for the thousands who pay to watch. Ice is cooled from below, not by cold air over top.

Thanks Captain Obvious, but the ice is kept at about -5 and the stands at +10. I doubt it takes much heat to keep the stands at +10 with 20,000 people in the rink. +20 in the concourse yes. Ice refrigeration produces a continuously large amount of heat and this heat can be utilized directly to space heating and supply air heating, pre-heating of hot water for ice resurfacing and showers.

Socguy
Apr 23, 2016, 3:10 PM
Thanks Captain Obvious, but the ice is kept at about -5 and the stands at +10. I doubt it takes much heat to keep the stands at +10 with 20,000 people in the rink. +20 in the concourse yes. Ice refrigeration produces a continuously large amount of heat and this heat can be utilized directly to space heating and supply air heating, pre-heating of hot water for ice resurfacing and showers.

It's not just heat, you need to cycle the air. 20+ people create a ton of moisture and CO2. There's large doors opening and closing, and different events requiring different conditions. There's even a thing called air stratification designers must take into account. By reducing the volume of air you need to continually manage, you save heaps of money.

If there's any HVAC techs out there, perhaps they can enlighten us further...

MasterG
Apr 23, 2016, 3:50 PM
It is not going to happen there. The thoughts about that are half baked given there are other developments already on-going on that location, and the opportunity cost for giving that up is substantial. The project will instead need to go on what is already city/stampede land OR on brownfield where the owner is not looking for other development.

Given the cost estimate and the shoddy plans announced, they should look to put this back in Stampede Park. This whole process has left me with zero confidence that the Flames ownership have the capability or aptitude to pull off a successful, well integrated urban stadium design / arena district. This thing will be a blight anywhere it moves, might as well take up a few more parking lots in the current wasteland of Stampede Park.

Does anyone know the details of how the Stampede operates with regards to the City? They have had a long and unusual history for a private foundation, including public funding, expropriation powers and a ton of implicit benefits the city provides them.

Anyone know the specifics on what the current relationship is like? Perhaps the City can play matchmaker and get them to coordinate.

Cage
Apr 23, 2016, 5:25 PM
Given the cost estimate and the shoddy plans announced, they should look to put this back in Stampede Park. This whole process has left me with zero confidence that the Flames ownership have the capability or aptitude to pull off a successful, well integrated urban stadium design / arena district. This thing will be a blight anywhere it moves, might as well take up a few more parking lots in the current wasteland of Stampede Park.

Does anyone know the details of how the Stampede operates with regards to the City? They have had a long and unusual history for a private foundation, including public funding, expropriation powers and a ton of implicit benefits the city provides them.

Anyone know the specifics on what the current relationship is like? Perhaps the City can play matchmaker and get them to coordinate.

You do realize the 10 day event is held on the wasteland parking lot, build an arena on the parking lot and where will the 10 day event go?

The dtampede operates as a separate society that is independent from the City, however at least one councillor plus the mayor have exoficio status on the stampede board. The stampede does not pay property tax on the stampede lands.

Also the Saddledome is separate from the stampede board. The city owns and operates the Saddledome with a the operations subcontracted to CSEC.

Stampede and CSEC will never cooperate on a new arena for the simple fact both organizations want the same entertainment district. There is only enough demand in Calgary for one entertainment district.

Suburgatory
Apr 23, 2016, 5:25 PM
It's not just heat, you need to cycle the air. 20+ people create a ton of moisture and CO2. There's large doors opening and closing, and different events requiring different conditions. There's even a thing called air stratification designers must take into account. By reducing the volume of air you need to continually manage, you save heaps of money.

If there's any HVAC techs out there, perhaps they can enlighten us further...

Also covered already.

Cage
Apr 23, 2016, 5:59 PM
Wouldn't the city be on the hook for the majority of the upgrades to the area no what what developement goes in there? I understand that they will have better cost recovery with different developements, but they are still going to have to pay for the remediation, realignment of Bow Tr. and other infrastructure upgrades. I hope they decide to do the remediation regardless of what happens to the area. I just see this report as the city's counter proposal and a way to say to the Flames to step it up a notch.

City Administration has to be very careful with the debate about West Village ARP vs CalgaryNext. Just about all the infrastructure improvements for Calgary Next will be required under West Village ARP. The other problem with the City's cost estimate is that West Village ARP costs need to have inflation factored in because the redevelopment will not occur for another 10+ years.

City Administration might not be able to bifurcate the debate between CalgaryNext vs West Village ARP. The debate could become is there any cost effective solution to redevelopment and remediation.

Another problem for city administration, their cheaper environmental option has less success rate than the expensive option. The cheaper option is similar to fertilizer and gas station remediation. At some fertilizer and gas station sites, remediation does not take hold and the expensive option has to be completed at the end of the cheaper option. Finally, true environmentalists don't approve of the cheaper option, which was basically developed and implemented at behest of bean counters and Corp executives. From a provincial political perspective, the NDP aligns more with the environmental movement and the previous PC govt alligned with the corporate executives. It is naive to expect that environmental laws will remain static with the govt of the day. It is entirely possible the cheaper option may get tossed out.

Cage
Apr 23, 2016, 6:05 PM
Yep - totally agree.

And the Railtown location sure seems ideal in terms current & future C-Train access, proximity to related facilities (BMO Centre), walkable from corporate downtown, and they could develop an entertainment district in conjunction with the Stampede's plans.
Seems perfect.

Rail town option is out because the city put the Railtown lands into the East Village CRL. If you put the arena and/or stadium onto the Railtown lands, the East Village CRL cannot recover its infrastructure costs. Also there is no CRL for the Arena and/or Stadium.

A distant second problem for the CRL lands, it would blow up the Stampede's plans for an entertainment district.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 23, 2016, 7:44 PM
You do realize the 10 day event is held on the wasteland parking lot, build an arena on the parking lot and where will the 10 day event go?

The dtampede operates as a separate society that is independent from the City, however at least one councillor plus the mayor have exoficio status on the stampede board. The stampede does not pay property tax on the stampede lands.

Also the Saddledome is separate from the stampede board. The city owns and operates the Saddledome with a the operations subcontracted to CSEC.

Stampede and CSEC will never cooperate on a new arena for the simple fact both organizations want the same entertainment district. There is only enough demand in Calgary for one entertainment district.
Independent nonshare capital organizations that are tax exempt are pretty easy to bring around. They derive all their power from the pleasure of their parent governments. Edmonton brought Northlands into compliance and that was with northlands receiving revenue from rexall far more than the stampede does from the dome.

craner
Apr 23, 2016, 9:18 PM
As an example, the owners are saying $250M will come from a ticket surcharge, however, that money is required up front, so they want the city to provide the money without interest. City doesn't have billions sitting around, so they would have to finance that, and all the other costs.
Not that I'm a fan of the funding scheme for NEXT or trying to defend CSEG but have they actually ever said they are asking the City to upfront the Ticket Surcharge $$ ?

Cage
Apr 24, 2016, 3:05 AM
Not that I'm a fan of the funding scheme for NEXT or trying to defend CSEG but have they actually ever said they are asking the City to upfront the Ticket Surcharge $$ ?

The ticket surcharge cannot be applied to arena and stadium tickets until the new places are built, however the money to build the facilities is required before and during construction.

Think of it as Yu want to build a new house but need basement suite rental income to help pay the mortgage. Who is going to front you the money to build the house?

craner
Apr 24, 2016, 7:41 AM
^I know King referred to "private lenders"when asked that very question.

Socguy
Apr 25, 2016, 5:26 PM
http://www.metronews.ca/views/calgary/urban-compass/2016/04/24/west-village-a-poor-choice-for-calgary-sports-megaplex.html

Metro agrees, Stampede is a better site for an arena.

sammyd
Apr 26, 2016, 12:35 AM
http://www.metronews.ca/views/calgary/urban-compass/2016/04/24/west-village-a-poor-choice-for-calgary-sports-megaplex.html

Metro agrees, Stampede is a better site for an arena.

I liked the quote about how on Google Earth there is a lot of land on Stampede Park to fill a new arena.

Innersoul1
Apr 26, 2016, 7:21 PM
I liked the quote about how on Google Earth there is a lot of land on Stampede Park to fill a new arena.

Journalism at it's finest.

Top to bottom that's a horrible article. Yes the river interface is poor but we have all established that some re-alignment of Bow Trail would have to take place. Additionally, has the writer been to Sunalta Station?

The Fisher Account
Apr 27, 2016, 12:37 AM
I don't see a lot mentioned about how the Saddledome flooded in 2013 and that that's a concern of building on the Stampede grounds by the CSEC

Socguy
Apr 27, 2016, 3:58 PM
I don't see a lot mentioned about how the Saddledome flooded in 2013 and that that's a concern of building on the Stampede grounds by the CSEC

I don't see that as a concern. The city has spent tons of money to harden the downtown/east village against floods. The Province is undertaking flood mitigation measures out in springbank. Any risk that remains could be handled by a building designed to withstand a once in 100y flood. Since the city would likely own the building, they flames bear little to no cleanup risk.

As far as I'm concerned, the real concern of CSEC is that IF a new arena goes up and IF it's on or near stampede grounds, ownership misses out on the huge real estate payday that they're after. Besides, if they were really concerned about floods, why would they propose West Village? If an epic flood came again it's conceivable that it could get them there too.

The Fisher Account
Apr 27, 2016, 5:11 PM
I don't see that as a concern. The city has spent tons of money to harden the downtown/east village against floods. The Province is undertaking flood mitigation measures out in springbank. Any risk that remains could be handled by a building designed to withstand a once in 100y flood. Since the city would likely own the building, they flames bear little to no cleanup risk.

As far as I'm concerned, the real concern of CSEC is that IF a new arena goes up and IF it's on or near stampede grounds, ownership misses out on the huge real estate payday that they're after. Besides, if they were really concerned about floods, why would they propose West Village? If an epic flood came again it's conceivable that it could get them there too.

Um, THIS isn't really a concern?!!

http://3.cdn.nhle.com/flames/images/upload/gallery/2013/06/Ours/IMG_7577_slide.jpg

The WV is not in a floodplain and that was a selling feature of the CSEC proposal.

The Stampede grounds are, and I've heard a lot about flood mitigation plans but not a lot about shovels in the ground. I'd be wary about spending $1B without those pieces in place

Riise
Apr 27, 2016, 5:33 PM
I don't see that as a concern. The city has spent tons of money to harden the downtown/east village against floods.

It's not a concern after one spends a ton of money to harden defenses or floodproof their property. It was a case of the latter with the EV as they raised the grade of the area and I assume CMLC would do the same in East Victoria

craner
Apr 28, 2016, 6:49 PM
From the "Stadiums and Arenas" thread in the Canada section:
Haven't seen these posted here yet:

From CalgaryNEXT (http://calgarynext.com/about-calgary-next.php)

http://i68.tinypic.com/33xx26x.png
http://i65.tinypic.com/ambk9t.png
http://i63.tinypic.com/ncoaq1.png
http://i64.tinypic.com/2hoxuyr.png

Socguy
Apr 28, 2016, 11:25 PM
Um, THIS isn't really a concern?!!

http://3.cdn.nhle.com/flames/images/upload/gallery/2013/06/Ours/IMG_7577_slide.jpg

The WV is not in a floodplain and that was a selling feature of the CSEC proposal.

The Stampede grounds are, and I've heard a lot about flood mitigation plans but not a lot about shovels in the ground. I'd be wary about spending $1B without those pieces in place

:rolleyes: and yet the 'Dome is still good to go after losing 2 month of it's glorious 33 year history.

No. It's not a concern if the flood mitigation both the city and the province are undertaking are completed.

But if you're really concerned, let me reassure you that if some once-in-10,000-years flood so big that it overwhelms the new defenses comes along, a damp arena will be the least of lake Calgary's problems.

JBinCalgary
Apr 30, 2016, 3:38 AM
I hope something amicable can be attained. The thought of another Saddledome make over is cringe worthy!

suburbia
Apr 30, 2016, 10:48 PM
I hope something amicable can be attained. The thought of another Saddledome make over is cringe worthy!

I don't get it. Why is doing improvements to the Saddledome cringe worthy?

I don't think it is cringe worthy.

sammyd
May 1, 2016, 12:12 AM
I don't get it. Why is doing improvements to the Saddledome cringe worthy?

I don't think it is cringe worthy.

The Saddledome needs a total rebuild. For many reasons all of which are available online. Please research it yourself.

suburbia
May 1, 2016, 12:41 AM
The Saddledome needs a total rebuild. For many reasons all of which are available online. Please research it yourself.

What I've heard here is that all of the challenges really have little to do with hockey. The biggest challenge is that "some" big money concerts skip Calgary because the dome's roof can't carry as much weight as other facilities. The other challenge I've heard is that some feel a crunch in the concession areas, in part because they park GMC trucks there. Neither of these have anything to do with hockey, the playing of the game nor the watching of the game.

What has your research informed you about limitations the dome has placed on playing or watching the game?

As an aside, lots of things are "available online" however we have this forum to consolidate that information, discuss and respectfully debate it, and provide new ideas. I think in context of the limited information that we've seen here with respect to limitations to the game of hockey that the Saddledome imposes, my question was a fair one

Congratulations on your 9th post.

bt04ku
May 1, 2016, 12:51 AM
The other challenge I've heard is that some feel a crunch in the concession areas, in part because they park GMC trucks there. Neither of these have anything to do with hockey, the playing of the game nor the watching of the game.

A crowded concourse means your trips to concessions or restrooms become longer to the point you will miss watching some of the game.

suburbia
May 1, 2016, 12:56 AM
A crowded concourse means your trips to concessions or restrooms become longer to the point you will miss watching some of the game.

I get that, but the post I was originally responding to stated that any renovation (presumably to resolve such issues) would be cringe worthy. My response was, why would that be cringe worthy?

As an aside, I've gone to many games, and really have not missed portion of those. Maybe I plan the washroom visits better.

Ramsayfarian
May 1, 2016, 2:28 PM
A crowded concourse means your trips to concessions or restrooms become longer to the point you will miss watching some of the game.

Not if you follow my lead and wear adult diapers. If more people did this the crush of the concourse would be greatly diminished.

I've written Depends numerous letters suggesting they market a sports theme line of diapers. Haven't heard back yet. I suspect the respective leagues charge too much for licensing.

Fuzz
May 1, 2016, 2:39 PM
You can keep your soggy diapers, I get a catheter put in before each game.

Skyguy06
May 1, 2016, 3:13 PM
You really need to go to the washrooms during the play of game, otherwise the wait is just too long. If you try and go during intermission during a sold out game, the line snakes so far back it crowds the concession even further.
Among other things, it's probably one of the worst design aspects of the Dome.

sammyd
May 1, 2016, 4:40 PM
What I've heard here is that all of the challenges really have little to do with hockey. The biggest challenge is that "some" big money concerts skip Calgary because the dome's roof can't carry as much weight as other facilities. The other challenge I've heard is that some feel a crunch in the concession areas, in part because they park GMC trucks there. Neither of these have anything to do with hockey, the playing of the game nor the watching of the game.

What has your research informed you about limitations the dome has placed on playing or watching the game?

As an aside, lots of things are "available online" however we have this forum to consolidate that information, discuss and respectfully debate it, and provide new ideas. I think in context of the limited information that we've seen here with respect to limitations to the game of hockey that the Saddledome imposes, my question was a fair one

Congratulations on your 9th post.

You want to debate something that is not debatable. They are not going to renovate the Saddledome. For various obvious reasons that I am sure you know. You are just a trouble maker and you knew your post was obtuse. My post count is irrelevant when the vast majority of yours are complete garbage.

speedog
May 2, 2016, 3:07 AM
Not if you follow my lead and wear adult diapers. If more people did this the crush of the concourse would be greatly diminished.

Keeps you a bit warmer too.

Barnes
May 2, 2016, 8:45 PM
What I've heard here is that all of the challenges really have little to do with hockey. The biggest challenge is that "some" big money concerts skip Calgary because the dome's roof can't carry as much weight as other facilities. The other challenge I've heard is that some feel a crunch in the concession areas, in part because they park GMC trucks there. Neither of these have anything to do with hockey, the playing of the game nor the watching of the game.

What has your research informed you about limitations the dome has placed on playing or watching the game?

As an aside, lots of things are "available online" however we have this forum to consolidate that information, discuss and respectfully debate it, and provide new ideas. I think in context of the limited information that we've seen here with respect to limitations to the game of hockey that the Saddledome imposes, my question was a fair one

Congratulations on your 9th post.

There are plenty of hockey related challenges. Limited suites, small lower bowl, and not much club or premium seating. These not only generate more revenue because they just cost more but the team keeps more money as they carry a lower percentage of HRR.

Player facilities are not good at all compared to newer buildings. It's tough to woo UFAs to Calgary with what we got going on in the bowels of the Saddledome. The dressing room is not much bigger than one at your average community rink. There is no dedicated practice facility etc. Just like how the concourse and it's facilities no longer meet the expectations of NHL fans, everything below no longer meet the expectations of NHL players.

Ramsayfarian
May 2, 2016, 8:47 PM
You can keep your soggy diapers, I get a catheter put in before each game.

That could work as well, but I'd have to lay off the Nachos and cheese.

ggopher
May 3, 2016, 5:33 PM
The Stampede grounds is a great spot for the arena. I would love to see the Big 4 building demolished and replaced with a new arena which could also improve the connection to 17th Avenue and the LRT. However, the Flames want complete control and don't want to work with the Stampede. Which is fine if they are paying for the land and arena, if not they better learn to get a long. The challenge with the Big 4 building is the oil show needs the space. But this project should also be tied in with the Stampede's plans to expand the convention space.

It doesn't make sense to put a football stadium that is used 10 times per year downtown. It does not create vibrancy the rest of the year like an arena would. Maybe if it is combined with a field house, but still not a great use of downtown space.

esquire
May 3, 2016, 5:44 PM
You really need to go to the washrooms during the play of game, otherwise the wait is just too long. If you try and go during intermission during a sold out game, the line snakes so far back it crowds the concession even further.
Among other things, it's probably one of the worst design aspects of the Dome.

I hate to break it to you, but the new building will have washroom lineups at intermission too. That's the reality of thousands of people needing to pee in a very short window of time.

If you really want to get in and out fast, I go a few minutes before the intermission is over and I rarely have much of a wait.

Innersoul1
May 3, 2016, 7:45 PM
The Stampede grounds is a great spot for the arena. I would love to see the Big 4 building demolished and replaced with a new arena which could also improve the connection to 17th Avenue and the LRT. However, the Flames want complete control and don't want to work with the Stampede. Which is fine if they are paying for the land and arena, if not they better learn to get a long. The challenge with the Big 4 building is the oil show needs the space. But this project should also be tied in with the Stampede's plans to expand the convention space.

It doesn't make sense to put a football stadium that is used 10 times per year downtown. It does not create vibrancy the rest of the year like an arena would. Maybe if it is combined with a field house, but still not a great use of downtown space.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but the Big 4 location isn't the right spot. There just isn't enough space. It would eat up all of the valuable parking lot space that is used for the Stampede Fair grounds. I would imagine that any new arena would be North of the current Arena.

kiwi
May 13, 2016, 2:49 PM
I can't see how Murray Edwards will convince the province or city for subsidize for this project considering all the economic problems in Calgary, rest of Alberta and the fire in Fort Mac.

odogfo
Jun 14, 2016, 4:45 PM
An article from this morning in regards to the a plan 'b' arena location

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgarynext-plan-b-is-being-examined

People.talking
Jun 14, 2016, 4:52 PM
The odds rights now point towards the plan B site

Calgarian
Jun 14, 2016, 4:57 PM
I think it makes sense to try and combine the buildings, but there isn't enough room for it unless they move out of the inner city. McMahon desperately needs something to happen, I'd prefer the wrecking ball, but a proper renovation could definitely work, they just need to make it a horse shoe and enclose the damn concourse!

speedog
Jun 14, 2016, 5:16 PM
McMahon, the only other stadiums I've been to are the big O, Skydome and BC Place and I can't recall much about them. Even if one renovates McMahon, one place it would probably still sorely lack in are boxes/suites, I'm not sure how many in here have been in McMahon's boxes/suites but my impression of them is that they're pretty sad and I can't see how you'd add new/better ones short of tearing down the whole stadium and starting over. The rest of the stadium I believe is fixable, yeah it'll cost a lot of money but that old girl is sort of endearing in a way.

The Urbanist
Jun 14, 2016, 5:27 PM
There's a ULI event on this topic at 5:45PM on Thursday. The event's speakers include Ted Turner for AEG Worldwide (O2 in London & LA Live) and Glenn Scott from the Katz group. Robb Kerr from the Fan 960 is the moderator. Here's the link for more info:

http://alberta.uli.org/event/arena-and-entertainment-districts-event/

MalcolmTucker
Jun 14, 2016, 5:37 PM
Realistically I won't go to any events at McMahon until the seating area is entirely rebuilt. People on average are just a lot taller than when the stadium was designed.

That being said, spending major tax dollars on it without removing the concert restrictions is a non-starter for me.

Fuzz
Jun 14, 2016, 5:40 PM
McMahon, the only other stadiums I've been to are the big O, Skydome and BC Place and I can't recall much about them. Even if one renovates McMahon, one place it would probably still sorely lack in are boxes/suites, I'm not sure how many in here have been in McMahon's boxes/suites but my impression of them is that they're pretty sad and I can't see how you'd add new/better ones short of tearing down the whole stadium and starting over. The rest of the stadium I believe is fixable, yeah it'll cost a lot of money but that old girl is sort of endearing in a way.
Could they upgrade one side, add box seats, basically improve everything and leave the other side as cheap seats to be upgraded in the future if demand warrants it? It''s essentially 2 buildings.

Luk_o
Jun 14, 2016, 6:46 PM
I liked the NEXT concept and the location, but the execution for the Stamps and game day experience in a permanently enclosed makeshift stadium layout out of the field house would have been brutal. I'm glad they're looking at the reno option for McMahon. Keep the elements in the game!
- Complete the concourse walk around on both ends and put measures in place to help enclose the stadium from the wind.
- Incorporate new/more/better washroom facilities on these new end zones.
- New seats, and for the love of god get red of those blue ones! Nothing but red and white. You could also decrease the capacity by installing better individual seating throughout.
- Wishful thinking would be to install partial canopies over each side to further block the wind and give a bit of shelter. Could be done but would be expensive.

Most Calgarians don't care about the CFL or the Stamps, that's just the reality. While I personally would love a new stadium, I know this doesn't speak for the majority - Renovate McMahon, its fine.

CalgaryAlex
Jun 14, 2016, 7:04 PM
Really one thing they could do is tear down the top half of the east side of the stadium and replace it with a few tiers of boxes. The four corners of the stadium only fill up at Riders games and partially during the Labour Day Classic. By tearing out half of the cheap seats, they would simply push all of the cheap tickets into the sunny side of the stadium, which is where people want to sit anyways.

Then push the concourse out on the west side into the parking lot to triple the width of the concourse there. Completely overhaul the concourse with big upgrades on washroom space and new vendors. Link the concourse across both end zones with a significantly wider connecting concourse. Widen the east concourse as well, but with removed seating capacity on that side, changes don't have to be as significant as the west side. Add a retractable awning on the west side of the stadium (honestly, this doesn't have to be too costly if you keep it low-tech) for rainy or snowy days.

Maybe add boxes at each end zone and, if possible, keep some room for temporary Grey Cup/special event seating above the end zone concourses.

Keep costs down by not going "all the way" and maintaining a majority share of the current stadium, and you can increase revenue by making the place more comfortable for the casual or corporate fan.

Edit: in addition, spend a few hundred bucks to upgrade the damn beer fridges. Would be nice to get a cold one once in a while if i'm paying that much for a Canadian.

lubicon
Jun 14, 2016, 7:04 PM
renovate McMahon, that works just fine. do a complete tear down and rebuild or each side but do it one at a time. Should be able to accomplish each half in a year so two years for the total job and you only lose half the capacity and don't chase the team out of the city completely while it is happening. Better yet, build some endzone seating (ie horseshoe) which has the bonus of accommodating some of the STH who would be displaced during the rebuild. End result is basically a new stadium. Gotta be a horseshoe and 40 000 seating capacity give or take.

Calgarian
Jun 14, 2016, 7:31 PM
McMahon, the only other stadiums I've been to are the big O, Skydome and BC Place and I can't recall much about them. Even if one renovates McMahon, one place it would probably still sorely lack in are boxes/suites, I'm not sure how many in here have been in McMahon's boxes/suites but my impression of them is that they're pretty sad and I can't see how you'd add new/better ones short of tearing down the whole stadium and starting over. The rest of the stadium I believe is fixable, yeah it'll cost a lot of money but that old girl is sort of endearing in a way.

They could probably add some box seats, it would mean a lot of demo work which would likely have to be staged over a couple offseasons, but it could happen.

tomthumb2
Jun 14, 2016, 7:51 PM
I liked the NEXT concept and the location, but the execution for the Stamps and game day experience in a permanently enclosed makeshift stadium layout out of the field house would have been brutal. I'm glad they're looking at the reno option for McMahon. Keep the elements in the game!
- Complete the concourse walk around on both ends and put measures in place to help enclose the stadium from the wind.
- Incorporate new/more/better washroom facilities on these new end zones.
- New seats, and for the love of god get red of those blue ones! Nothing but red and white. You could also decrease the capacity by installing better individual seating throughout.
- Wishful thinking would be to install partial canopies over each side to further block the wind and give a bit of shelter. Could be done but would be expensive.

Most Calgarians don't care about the CFL or the Stamps, that's just the reality. While I personally would love a new stadium, I know this doesn't speak for the majority - Renovate McMahon, its fine.

Sadly this seems to be the trend, although there were 28,000 for a crappy pre-season game last week. Being a season ticket holder, I'll be greatly disappointed if they only do "some renovations" as quoted in the Herald. That's just brutal. Then again, I'll prbably be dead by the time they actually get around to doing ANYTHING.

odogfo
Jun 14, 2016, 8:48 PM
In the end, as long as Calgary builds a better arena than edmonton, that's all that matters.

Luk_o
Jun 14, 2016, 9:20 PM
Sadly this seems to be the trend, although there were 28,000 for a crappy pre-season game last week. Being a season ticket holder, I'll be greatly disappointed if they only do "some renovations" as quoted in the Herald. That's just brutal. Then again, I'll prbably be dead by the time they actually get around to doing ANYTHING.

Long time season ticket holder myself, I hear ya. Another huge thing about NEXT is that it would essentially kill tailgating - the traditional cornerstone to the Stampeder gameday experience. IMO McMahon is in the perfect location as you need the lot space to make this happen, but I don't want downtown land utilized as lot space that's never used.

Stage the reno over years - with the right upgrades McMahon can really be a great facility for the league that it houses. Doesn't need the glitz of an NFL barn and quite honestly, I don't want it too. Been to a few of the massive new billion dollar stadiums down south and they make it so comfortable that they almost take away from the game, you look around and its a bunch of people looking at their phone...even watching the game live IN FRONT OF THEM on their phone. Not saying this is everyone but you can definitely notice it more in the new Cadillacs compared to the older 'less comfort' Stadiums.

Free WIFI, enclosed w/ A/C...don't want it. Give me a decent seat, some wind mitigation, easy access to beer & the pisser and that's perfect.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 14, 2016, 9:25 PM
Unless tailgating and parking becomes very lucrative eventually the space around McMahon will no longer be parking lots.

Calgarian
Jun 14, 2016, 9:35 PM
The city came out with a plan for the redevelopment of the area a few years back. Not sure if it was a study or a more advanced concept though. It did show McMahon there as part of the proposal. If someone wants to go digging through old Calgary Construction threads they could probably find something...

Socguy
Jun 14, 2016, 9:35 PM
In the end, as long as Calgary builds a better arena than edmonton, that's all that matters.

That's going to be VERY expensive.

MichaelS
Jun 14, 2016, 9:40 PM
The city came out with a plan for the redevelopment of the area a few years back. Not sure if it was a study or a more advanced concept though. It did show McMahon there as part of the proposal. If someone wants to go digging through old Calgary Construction threads they could probably find something...

Is page 105 of the Brentwood TOD ARP what you are referring to?
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/arp-asp/arp/brentwood-arp.pdf

Calgarian
Jun 14, 2016, 11:01 PM
Is page 105 of the Brentwood TOD ARP what you are referring to?
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/arp-asp/arp/brentwood-arp.pdf

Could be it, that one looks tied to the Motel Village redevelopment, can't recall if that was in the scope of the one I saw some years back.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 14, 2016, 11:13 PM
McMahon is outside of the scope. There is no plan from the city side, as it is university land and the university has not initiated a plan. The city cannot initiate a plan on the land.

polishavenger
Jun 15, 2016, 5:05 PM
McMahon is outside of the scope. There is no plan from the city side, as it is university land and the university has not initiated a plan. The city cannot initiate a plan on the land.

There was an initial plan to put some retail development on the lots next to crowchild, anchored by a grocery store.

Calgarian
Jun 15, 2016, 5:19 PM
McMahon is outside of the scope. There is no plan from the city side, as it is university land and the university has not initiated a plan. The city cannot initiate a plan on the land.

The University must have done it then, definitely remember seeing the plan for that land, and it kept the football and baseball stadiums.

CalgaryAlex
Jun 15, 2016, 5:53 PM
The University must have done it then, definitely remember seeing the plan for that land, and it kept the football and baseball stadiums.

I believe that while McMahon is on U of C property, the baseball stadium (and Foothills athletic park) is on city land. So, they can't fall onto the same plans unless the city and U of C work together.

Sounds like a job for the CMLC. But they have well over a decade of sorting out the Stampede's mess first. Then West Village. Then Westbrook. Then TODs. They should start hiring more people.

suburbia
Jun 15, 2016, 6:41 PM
There are plenty of hockey related challenges. Limited suites, small lower bowl, and not much club or premium seating. These not only generate more revenue because they just cost more but the team keeps more money as they carry a lower percentage of HRR.

None of those are "hockey" challenges. What those are - are ways to make even more money. Between the appreciation on the team, the positive cash flow over the decades, and the massive profits from entertainment at the dome (leveraging the low rent agreed to by the city based on hockey) the owners of the entertainment corporation have made well over $1,000,000,000.00 on their original $16M investment. What you've articulated is that the city should thrown in more tax payer money to subsidize the owners increasing their already astronomical rate of return.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 15, 2016, 7:26 PM
I'll grant that there has been appreciation in the value of the teams. There is no evidence of massive profits from the other things. If there was, there would be lots of private rink proposals.

And unrealized gains are just that.

Does the city really want to end up in a Colisée Pepsi, Winnipeg Arena situation?

s211
Jun 15, 2016, 7:33 PM
Does the city really want to end up in a Colisée Pepsi, Winnipeg Arena situation?

What happened in those instances?

esquire
Jun 15, 2016, 7:34 PM
Serious question: is the possibility of a Euro-style phased one-stand-at-a-time rebuild of McMahon in the cards at all? i.e. build a new south stand, then demolish and replace the west stand, then demolish and replace the east stand. Could be done over the course of a decade.

When you have as good a site as McMahon is, it may be worth finding a way to keep it. IGF's location in Winnipeg probably knocks per game attendance down by a couple thousand a game simply because of the hassle involved in getting there.

Socguy
Jun 15, 2016, 7:55 PM
...
Does the city really want to end up in a Colisée Pepsi, Winnipeg Arena situation?

Colisee Pepsi: sat 15,176, Winnipeg Arena: sat 15, 393, Saddledome: seats 19, 289 which is down from it's high of 20, 230 (as the flames demanded the city renovate and install more luxury boxes.)

By comparison the new Edmonton arena will only seat 18, 641.

Considering the Flames are comfortably in the top half of league revenue, there is less than zero percent chance of them leaving for greener pastures. A new arena is simply a shiny new toy for the well-heeled that makes no sense from a city/taxpayer perspective.

craner
Jun 17, 2016, 12:12 AM
Some great ideas for renovating the old gal (McMahon).
I agree it could be done in phases over a number of seasons. I just really hope they do more SUBSTANTIAL renovations (and not just SOME renovations as mentioned in the article).
Perhaps the Stamps could use the adjacent new Field House as a practice facility (as I think the Eskimos do in Edmonton).
And lastly - I'm glad the Stamps are staying outdoors.

People.talking
Jun 17, 2016, 12:15 AM
McMahon isn't a renovate type project, Its a tear down and rebuild type project.

craner
Jun 17, 2016, 12:29 AM
^I agree, but it could be done in phases over say 4 seasons (south, east, west north) for example.
They should do something with the field as well as I've heard the crown is too high to host FIFA sanctioned events.
I think the location of McMahon is great. Just need to upgrade the C-Train station and walkway over Crowchild as well.

Calgarian
Jun 17, 2016, 3:08 PM
McMahon isn't a renovate type project, Its a tear down and rebuild type project.

Problem with that is there is nowhere for them to play during this teardown and rebuild...

^I agree, but it could be done in phases over say 4 seasons (south, east, west north) for example.
They should do something with the field as well as I've heard the crown is too high to host FIFA sanctioned events.
I think the location of McMahon is great. Just need to upgrade the C-Train station and walkway over Crowchild as well.

If McMahon is to remain, this is pretty much how it will have to be done, shitty thing is all the work will have to happen over winter.

artvandelay
Jun 17, 2016, 4:21 PM
Bringing McMahon to an acceptable standard will cost the same or more than building a new, modern stadium. It's a foolish endeavour and it's unfortunate to see our municipal leaders leading us down a path that will ultimately cost more to the taxpayer in the long run versus a facility combined with a new arena.

The Fisher Account
Jun 17, 2016, 5:17 PM
What you're not hearing is that U of C likely REALLY wants McMahon demolished so they can redevelop the site. No need for the Dinos to play in a 40k stadium

RyLucky
Jun 17, 2016, 5:56 PM
The biggest change that McMahon ought to undertake is to respond to how its neighbourhood has changed since 1960, when McMahon was first built.

http://cfl.wp.uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/12/06000459/mcmahon2.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3e/eb/79/3eeb79ff1156e9c0eb110d3233ed3e0f.jpg

In 1960, the UofC (then called the University of Alberta, Calgary; or the University of Alberta at Calgary) had about 3 buildings and <1000 students. The first building at Foothills Medical Centre opened around 1965. There was virtually no development on 3 sides of McMahon, and only low-density bungalows on grassy prairie where there was any development at all. There was no C-train, no Olympics, no Hockey Team. In 1960, Calgary's population was 262 000! Calgary was Regina.

Calgary's population in 1960 was Regina's population in 2016. Calgary's population in 2016 was Toronto's population in 1960. What will Calgary's needs be in 2060?

If McMahon is to avoid being a blight on the surrounding neighbourhoods over the next 50 years, in addition to building more capacity and ways to extract revenue from fans, it needs to do this:
-Find a way to keep busy from 7 am - 2 am. Amateur/varsity sports, walking and biking shortcuts between Banff Trail Station and Foothills etc, game-day entertainment/restaurants/pubs, residential high-density development for students/employees. Be flexible to allow for future improvements to Foothills Athletic Park. Develop partners in UofC and the city. McMahon ought to be and could be an absolute selling point when attracting students or local development. Consider partnership and connections to Winsport, COP, and an athletic gateway to the Rockies and Bow River.
-Find a way to maintain mobility as ever-increasing traffic in the area becomes more and more of a problem. In the future, as now, most people will travel to the area by transit, walking or biking. It's a great location for all three of these modes, and with a few subtle improvements, it could improve even more. We need seamless pedestrian and cyclist connection in all directions, as well as through the grounds. Consider eventual upgrades to Crowchild (lights will probably eventually go out at 14th, Kensington, and 5th - but this could mean a variety of things). Consider access to 16th Ave BRT. Consider one day a gondola overhead.

Innersoul1
Jun 17, 2016, 6:09 PM
Problem with that is there is nowhere for them to play during this teardown and rebuild...


We might just need to think outside of the box a bit. When BC place was being renovated the Lions played out of a fully temporary stadium (Empire Stadium) built in the middle of a parking lot. It was actually quite nice. The sightlines were awesome and there was a great atmosphere in the stadium. The Lions did a great job with temporary washrooms and the food an beverage facilities were pretty good. Give what we are used to in terms of washrooms and food and beverage this actually wouldn't be that bad.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/cms/binary/3179336.jpg?size=640x420 Credit to the Edmonton Journal

http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/06/empirestadium.jpg Credit to Asset. inhabitat.com

http://lionbackers.com/history/images/empirefield.jpg Credit to lionsbackers.com

lubicon
Jun 17, 2016, 6:38 PM
McMahon isn't a renovate type project, Its a tear down and rebuild type project.

I'm not suggesting this could be done on the same scale as the two leagues are night and day different, but both Lambeau Field in Green Bay and Soldier Field in Chicago were heavily renovated and in the case of Soldier field the stadium was essentially replaced. So yes, a reno is possible rather than a full tear down.

I still think McMahon could be nicely updated by doing it in phases without affecting the Stamps too much. Hamilton and BC are not the same because they had other stadium options to play in while their fields were being built. There is nothing equivalent in Calgary that the Stamps could use.

Calgarian
Jun 17, 2016, 7:42 PM
We might just need to think outside of the box a bit. When BC place was being renovated the Lions played out of a fully temporary stadium (Empire Stadium) built in the middle of a parking lot. It was actually quite nice. The sightlines were awesome and there was a great atmosphere in the stadium. The Lions did a great job with temporary washrooms and the food an beverage facilities were pretty good. Give what we are used to in terms of washrooms and food and beverage this actually wouldn't be that bad.


That's not bad actually, I thought they played out of the stadium at UBC.

Innersoul1
Jun 17, 2016, 8:31 PM
I am not so worried about the arena. I figure whatever we get will be "world class." The big question is whether it will turn out as marvelous as Edmonton's new barn, which I think is a benchmark league wide.

McMahon really has me worried and so much hinges on this stadium. Not only will it be home to the Stampeders but it will be our major outdoor venue to host a multitude of other sports like soccer and rugby. I won't be making friends with this comment but I absolutely deplore the new Mosaic Stadium. It's big, but it just looks so awkward and disjointed.

In our new stadium we have the ability to build something wonderful and functional. I think that not sharing the space with a field house is the best thing to happen.

Watching the Euros I was reminded how many of the stadia being used were also used for World Cup 1998 when France hosted. Toulouse's stadium municipal is a great example of a simple yet graceful stadium with a capacity of 33,000:
http://www.cafefootball.eu/sites/default/files/contentfiles/images/stadium-toulouse-aerienne-60617.jpg
Credit: Cafefootball.eu
For something more modern we can look at Nice's Allianze Rivera with a capacity of 35,000:
http://media3.fcbarcelona.com/media/asset_publics/resources/000/104/276/size_640x360/STADE_ALLIANZ_RIVIERA_27_08_2013_037.v1402677333.jpg
Credit: FCbarcelona.com
http://http://www.cafefootball.eu/sites/default/files/contentfiles/images/o-allianz-riviera-facebook.jpg
Credit: Cafefootball.eu

People.talking
Jun 17, 2016, 8:42 PM
The Allianz Riviera is what I would want the new stadium to look like. I'd love to see something like that in Calgary, Or even a scaled down version of the Allianz Arena in Munich http://imageshack.com/a/img921/6131/Wmiklw.jpg
credit to Wikipedia

esquire
Jun 17, 2016, 8:46 PM
McMahon really has me worried and so much hinges on this stadium. Not only will it be home to the Stampeders but it will be our major outdoor venue to host a multitude of other sports like soccer and rugby. I won't be making friends with this comment but I absolutely deplore the new Mosaic Stadium. It's big, but it just looks so awkward and disjointed.

In our new stadium we have the ability to build something wonderful and functional. I think that not sharing the space with a field house is the best thing to happen.

Watching the Euros I was reminded how many of the stadia being used were also used for World Cup 1998 when France hosted. Toulouse's stadium municipal is a great example of a simple yet graceful stadium with a capacity of 33,000:

This is a good comment. I agree re: the awkwardness and disjointedness of the newer stadiums. I honestly don't get why a 30, 35 thousand seat stadium even needs an upper deck... just make it a nice single bowl and be done with it. Much more elegant.

speedog
Jun 18, 2016, 1:11 AM
Time for a separate McMahon thread or is there an old one that could be resurrected?

People.talking
Jun 18, 2016, 1:19 AM
or is there an old one that could be resurrected?Not that I know of.:shrug:

jeffwhit
Jun 20, 2016, 8:01 PM
Of some pertinence to this discussion, I'm sure.

Councillors to discuss Calgary 2026 Olympic bid

A local group has been working for months to drum up support to bring the Winter Olympics back to Calgary, and will present councillors with a proposal on Monday.

With a looming deadline to submit an expression of interest to the Canadian Olympic Committee by the end of June, Monday’s meeting will mark the early steps in a possible bid for the Games, according to a Postmedia source.

“They need council support to be considered as the Canadian bid by the Canadian Olympic Committee,” the source said.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/councillors-to-discuss-calgary-2026-olympic-bid

Coldrsx
Jun 21, 2016, 5:06 AM
Classy second place comments Ken.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/braid-calgary-second-to-edmonton-the-prospect-doesnt-guarantee-new-arena

googspecial
Jun 23, 2016, 6:08 PM
Not sure if this has been posted here before - but there is a project similar to CalgaryNEXT under construction right now in Moscow. Albeit a bit smaller than what we would likely require, it is interesting to see this concept (save the field house) actually happening elsewhere.

VTB Arena

http://en.vtb-arena.com/objects/sport-complex

The total capacity of Dynamo Central stadium is 26 319 seats. The Arena has 3 configurations: hockey configuration with 11 488 seats, basketball configuration – 12 770 seats, concert configuration– 14 000 seats and this process takes only a few hours. In terms of technical equipment this venue will be the most cutting-edge concert stage in Moscow. The project team has examined all known technical riders of modern world shows that can hardly be implemented presently at Moscow stadiums, and taking the international experience into account, has formulated respective technical requirements for reconstruction of the historical Dynamo Stadium.

http://riarealty.ru/images/40029/50/400295015.jpg?55

http://riarealty.ru/images/40029/22/400292288.jpg?449

http://i071.radikal.ru/1103/dd/6041a1c0b744.jpg

Skyscrapercity page for the arena (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1110571&page=27)

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7308/27663446391_6000a69b09_b.jpg

technomad
Jun 24, 2016, 6:12 PM
wow, that's a great looking complex, about 1000x better than the Next proposal

a clone would actually fit perfectly in WV beside the LRT station, but I still think it would be better located on the railtown lands

CalgaryAlex
Jun 24, 2016, 6:50 PM
wow, that's a great looking complex, about 1000x better than the Next proposal

a clone would actually fit perfectly in WV beside the LRT station, but I still think it would be better located on the railtown lands

A bunch of people keep mentioning Railtown, and have for years. But has Remington ever commented on this possibility?

Personally, I'd much rather the new arena go on the Stampede grounds to replace a bunch of the dead space there. Remington put together a pretty decent plan for mixed-use development which would be a much better use of land as a 3-way transition from East Village-Vic Park-Inglewood/Ramsay. There is no chance of there being a similar mixed-use development on Stampede lands. So why place an arena on lands which could be used for much greater purposes?

Someone refresh my memory - the youth campus development goes to 5 St SE, correct? An arena could be built between Olympic Way/5 St/12th Ave/14th Ave and be nearly equidistant from both the Green Line at 4 St and Red Line at Victoria Park.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 24, 2016, 7:17 PM
So basically here? Both circles have a 86m radius, which is the max radius of the Sprint Centre.

http://i.imgur.com/9YVapsa.jpg

Youth campus is just to the east:
http://i.imgur.com/uUexz1N.png
http://ramsaycalgary.ca/site-archive/civic/2009_dec_Stampede_masterplan.pdf

technomad
Jun 24, 2016, 8:12 PM
A bunch of people keep mentioning Railtown, and have for years. But has Remington ever commented on this possibility?

Personally, I'd much rather the new arena go on the Stampede grounds to replace a bunch of the dead space there. Remington put together a pretty decent plan for mixed-use development which would be a much better use of land as a 3-way transition from East Village-Vic Park-Inglewood/Ramsay. There is no chance of there being a similar mixed-use development on Stampede lands. So why place an arena on lands which could be used for much greater purposes?

Someone refresh my memory - the youth campus development goes to 5 St SE, correct? An arena could be built between Olympic Way/5 St/12th Ave/14th Ave and be nearly equidistant from both the Green Line at 4 St and Red Line at Victoria Park.

I figure everything is for sale at the right price... and they could make a quick easy buck flipping the land, rather than a more drawn out return from developing it over what could be many many years with the slump..

I also see the track-side lots better used for non-residential, and a sport complex there would be another way to disappear a few blocks of tracks all at once. of course there's no reason a sport complex there couldn't still be mixed use, think what Vancouver is doing around theirs right now

If it was arena only, north stampede grounds would do, but there isn't enough room to get the efficiencies of a combined complex in there. besides, latest stampede expansion plans looked pretty good, and I'm sure the olympics would be enough motivation for them to complete them

Railtown is also closer to all three train lines than any other location, and if the city or any other level of government is going to contribute to this, it should go where it has the best access for the whole city

CalgaryAlex
Jun 24, 2016, 8:29 PM
So basically here? Both circles have a 86m radius, which is the max radius of the Sprint Centre.

http://i.imgur.com/9YVapsa.jpg

Youth campus is just to the east:
http://i.imgur.com/uUexz1N.png
http://ramsaycalgary.ca/site-archive/civic/2009_dec_Stampede_masterplan.pdf

I can't view imgur images at work, but I am imagining a perfectly drawn circle here (https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0401585,-114.0522267,245m/data=!3m1!1e3)

CalgaryAlex
Jun 24, 2016, 8:32 PM
I figure everything is for sale at the right price... and they could make a quick easy buck flipping the land, rather than a more drawn out return from developing it over what could be many many years with the slump..

I also see the track-side lots better used for non-residential, and a sport complex there would be another way to disappear a few blocks of tracks all at once. of course there's no reason a sport complex there couldn't still be mixed use, think what Vancouver is doing around theirs right now

If it was arena only, north stampede grounds would do, but there isn't enough room to get the efficiencies of a combined complex in there. besides, latest stampede expansion plans looked pretty good, and I'm sure the olympics would be enough motivation for them to complete them

Railtown is also closer to all three train lines than any other location, and if the city or any other level of government is going to contribute to this, it should go where it has the best access for the whole city

Ok, but putting an arena in Railtown comes at what cost to the fabric of the city? I'd rather fill up land that would be otherwise developed in a disastrous way by the incompetent Stampede board than land that could be developed slowly but intelligently by Remington.

technomad
Jun 24, 2016, 8:45 PM
Ok, but putting an arena in Railtown comes at what cost to the fabric of the city? I'd rather fill up land that would be developed in a disastrous way by the incompetent Stampede board than land that could be developed slowly but intelligently by Remington.

Don't see how this would impact the city for better or worse any differently than WV? Except that WV lands are known can of worms, and their current state is less destitute than the higher visibility blankness of railtown

how could it improve the fabric of the city there? there's no reason a sports complex couldn't have CRUs fronting the south side of 9th av, or residential uses closer to the elbow river. I'd even like to see a pedestrian crossing from the complex over 9th right into fort Calgary, something like the animal crossings in Banff, but for humans :D

any project has equal opportunity to improve or destroy the local fabric, it's all in execution... perhaps stampede's execution will improve with their new ties with CMLC?

outoftheice
Jun 27, 2016, 5:36 PM
Not too sure how to post an image from a tweet but if you follow the link below you'll see a new image from Ken King's presentation to Council of CalgaryNext that shows a much better treatment of the area along the Bow River. That being said Bow Trail seems to have been magically removed from the rendering.

https://twitter.com/CBCFletch/status/747480946279067648

If the Flames are serious about creating a new park and Riverwalk style pathway between the complex and the Bow River I would be much more likely to support the proposal as ibfelt this was always one important aspect of the West Village Redevelopment Plan that CalgaryNext completely ignored.

Calgarian
Jun 27, 2016, 5:54 PM
New render looks a bit better and it looks like the design has improved a bit as well.

O-tacular
Jun 27, 2016, 6:37 PM
It still looks like a giant blob to me. The riverside treatment looks better but how real are these plans? I wouldn't put anything past KK and gang in their quest to push for one facility.

googspecial
Jun 27, 2016, 6:52 PM
Batch of new photos from Herald - not too great quality...

Photos: New renderings of proposed CalgaryNext arena project (http://calgaryherald.com/gallery/photos-new-renderings-of-proposed-calgarynext-arena-project)

This Tweet (https://twitter.com/CTVJKanygin/status/747495483543719936) is of better quality. Wasn't sure how to pull the img url from it...


Nice to see they've drawn in a Bow Trail Tunnel under the project... If the Crowchild Tunnel Concept goes ahead we'll soon have tunnels everywhere!!

outoftheice
Jun 27, 2016, 6:57 PM
Some more updated renderings from the Herald website that shows that yes indeed, Bow Trail has been magically taken away. I don't think the numbers the Flames are throwing around today though have changed much so the question becomes "Have they factored the Bow Trail realignment into their cost estimates?"

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/live-ken-king-presenting-on-calgarynext-at-city-council

http://wpmedia.calgaryherald.com/2016/06/6.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1

http://wpmedia.calgaryherald.com/2016/06/5.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1

http://wpmedia.calgaryherald.com/2016/06/4.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1

http://wpmedia.calgaryherald.com/2016/06/23.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1

http://wpmedia.calgaryherald.com/2016/06/3.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1

http://wpmedia.calgaryherald.com/2016/06/11.jpg?quality=55&strip=all&w=840&h=630&crop=1

CrossedTheTracks
Jun 27, 2016, 7:08 PM
Some more updated renderings from the Herald website that shows that yes indeed, Bow Trail has been magically taken away.

The 2nd-last rendering in your post shows westbound Bow Trail disappearing into a tunnel portal just east of the complex, and seemingly re-emerging just west of it, heading in a south-westerly direction at that point.

Tunnels are cheap, right? :D

O-tacular
Jun 27, 2016, 7:11 PM
Some more updated renderings from the Herald website that shows that yes indeed, Bow Trail has been magically taken away. I don't think the numbers the Flames are throwing around today though have changed much so the question becomes "Have they factored the Bow Trail realignment into their cost estimates?"



Their argument will be that "It would have to happen anyway".