PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

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

Calgarian
Apr 1, 2010, 3:15 PM
Wow, I came to this thread hoping for some new news about a new arena downtown and got a debate on gender equality.

sim
Apr 1, 2010, 3:23 PM
To add some fuel to the fire:

Coming from the field in question, it was and is indeed a little frustrating to see:

$5000 scholarship....

.... for any women pursuing a degree in engineering


Bursary... ... for women in science.


Research opportunity... ... for female students.


It's not like men are being discriminated against per se and I do understand why it is done, but like said, it can be frustrating.

As I have never actually looked into it, does the reverse exist in fields such as nursing or other typically female-dominated fields?

O-tacular
Apr 1, 2010, 3:25 PM
I don't ever reacall a dean of engeenering, or any other faculty, setting up a web site supporting men.


No, but then again thousands of years of female segregation seem to suggest we've had our fair share of "support".

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?

Oh no! I feel so emasculated! Now I can never achieve my dream of being a nurse. Oh, and Engineering is a sausage fest. There truly is no need to promote it to men.

Bigtime
Apr 1, 2010, 3:38 PM
Oh no! I feel so emasculated! Now I can never achieve my dream of being a nurse. Oh, and Engineering is a sausage fest. There truly is no need to promote it to men.

This is the truth, plus the only official sport of Engineering is drinking lots of beer. :cheers:

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 3:53 PM
This is the truth, plus the only official sport of Engineering is drinking lots of beer. :cheers:

And if you went to the U of Manitoba, playing in the Engineering band.

Sorry I started the arguement. I just think we men should support ourselves more as discrimination does go both ways and we certainly hear about it from the feminists.

Back to the stadium, I just hope something is done as it really is an embarasment to the city. I had a friend from another city visit and went to a game. He said it looked good on TV and he had no idea it was so bad behind the scenes. Kind of like a Hollywood set for a western.

freeweed
Apr 1, 2010, 4:36 PM
So someone standing up for men's rights would be labeled an extremist? Kind of proves my point, nobody takes men's issues seriously.

No, it just means that there's not much of a need to stand up for "men's rights" as a whole. Just like there's zero reason to stand up for "white's rights" - the only people doing that are racist extremists.

There are men's support groups for specific things such as domestic abuse and custody issues (sure there should be more...), there's just no need for an over-arching men's rights movement, because quite simply men aren't discriminated against except for very rare circumstances. And you've pointed them out. Women, on the other hand, are discriminated against in almost everything - or at least used to be - hence the feminist movement.

Get back to me when someone here gets upset that the owner or developers of Cross Iron Mills were men, and therefore know nothing about shopping. No one on these forums ever makes comments to that affect, but casual sexism against women is widespread. We're discussing this for that very reason (the initial "she's a woman, what can she know about sports" implication).

frinkprof
Apr 1, 2010, 4:59 PM
To add some fuel to the fire:

Coming from the field in question, it was and is indeed a little frustrating to see:

$5000 scholarship....

.... for any women pursuing a degree in engineering


Bursary... ... for women in science.


Research opportunity... ... for female students.


It's not like men are being discriminated against per se and I do understand why it is done, but like said, it can be frustrating.

As I have never actually looked into it, does the reverse exist in fields such as nursing or other typically female-dominated fields?
While you may have heard of the term "glass ceiling,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling

there are some who say the inverse exists for men in female-dominated professions. While there's no wikipedia article for it, look up the term "glass elevator (or escalator)."

And while we're talking about it, check out wikipedia's featured article today.

fusili
Apr 1, 2010, 5:18 PM
Ok, back to the Stadium. I think frinkprof hit it right on the head, there just isn't enough usage to justify an expansion. Football teams don't play enough games to generate enough revenue to build large Stadiums, unless you get massive turnout at games and sell a lot of box seats. Maybe if some other events took place there, the costs could be justified. And being owned by the University does put somewhat of a damper on expansion, seeing as they just undertook a massive capital expansion (TFDL, EEEL, CCIT expansion, International Residence/Hotel, New residence etc). Basically the UofC spent way too much on capital expansion, which is in part why Harvey Weingarten was ousted form his position by the board of governors (or at least that is what I heard form an inside source). I don't imagine an expansion anywhere in the near future, unless Calgary does host an international event like the Commonwealth games or such.

DLLB
Apr 1, 2010, 6:00 PM
It's too bad but I am afraid I must agree with you. I think we are stuck with it, as it is, for a long time.

Doug_Cgy
Apr 1, 2010, 6:37 PM
Ok, back to the Stadium. I think frinkprof hit it right on the head, there just isn't enough usage to justify an expansion. Football teams don't play enough games to generate enough revenue to build large Stadiums, unless you get massive turnout at games and sell a lot of box seats. Maybe if some other events took place there, the costs could be justified. And being owned by the University does put somewhat of a damper on expansion, seeing as they just undertook a massive capital expansion (TFDL, EEEL, CCIT expansion, International Residence/Hotel, New residence etc). Basically the UofC spent way too much on capital expansion, which is in part why Harvey Weingarten was ousted form his position by the board of governors (or at least that is what I heard form an inside source). I don't imagine an expansion anywhere in the near future, unless Calgary does host an international event like the Commonwealth games or such.

I think view is too narrow. Stadiums not only host sporting events, but concerts/festivals/cultural events etc too. Calgary needs to have world class facilities to truly get on a world class stage. Unfortunately McMahon and the Saddledome are about as far from "world class" as you can get.

Calgarian
Apr 1, 2010, 6:38 PM
Ok, back to the Stadium. I think frinkprof hit it right on the head, there just isn't enough usage to justify an expansion. Football teams don't play enough games to generate enough revenue to build large Stadiums, unless you get massive turnout at games and sell a lot of box seats. Maybe if some other events took place there, the costs could be justified. And being owned by the University does put somewhat of a damper on expansion, seeing as they just undertook a massive capital expansion (TFDL, EEEL, CCIT expansion, International Residence/Hotel, New residence etc). Basically the UofC spent way too much on capital expansion, which is in part why Harvey Weingarten was ousted form his position by the board of governors (or at least that is what I heard form an inside source). I don't imagine an expansion anywhere in the near future, unless Calgary does host an international event like the Commonwealth games or such.

If we had a domed Stadium, we could hold many more concerts there without disturbing neighbours. That would likely help offset the cost of the stadium. I agree though, a major world event is our best shot at a new stadium.

fusili
Apr 1, 2010, 7:06 PM
I think view is too narrow. Stadiums not only host sporting events, but concerts/festivals/cultural events etc too. Calgary needs to have world class facilities to truly get on a world class stage. Unfortunately McMahon and the Saddledome are about as far from "world class" as you can get.

Agreed, but then McMahon would have to start actually doing this. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but there haven't been many concerts there for a long time. And I don't think there has been a festival of any sorts there for a very long time as well. I was trying to say that unless McMahon starts being used for other events, they won't be able to justify a larger stadium. Even other sports should go in there. Ultimate frisbee league anyone?

frinkprof
Apr 1, 2010, 7:19 PM
I went to a metal festival at McMahon in June 2008 (Monsters of Rock). It had been the first concert in there in 17 years, the previous one being The Eagles. They did sound level testing near the closest residences to the stadium, and it barely registered. Mostly drowned out by the traffic noise on Crowchild Trail.

The rumour behind the long period between concerts is that nearby residents had kicked up a fuss. That was obviously debunked by the 2008 concert.

@Doug_Cgy:

Ugh. There's that overused "world class" term again.

MichaelS
Apr 1, 2010, 7:22 PM
Does anybody know how many events we are actually missing out on, due to our current facilities? Is Edmonton (or other western Canadian markets) getting a bunch of concerts and festivals that we aren't, specifically because of our facilities? I know that the roof of the Saddledome prevents some acts from setting their stage up, but how many?

Can we justify the massive cost of a new stadium if it simply means 2 more concerts a year?

fusili
Apr 1, 2010, 7:23 PM
I went to a metal festival at McMahon in June 2008 (Monsters of Rock). It had been the first concert in there in 17 years, the previous one being The Eagles. They did sound level testing near the closest residences to the stadium, and it barely registered. Mostly drowned out by the traffic noise on Crowchild Trail.

The rumour behind the long period between concerts is that nearby residents had kicked up a fuss. That was obviously debunked by the 2008 concert.


Ahh, I remember it being something like that. Didn't Lilith Fair play at McMahon? Anyways, I think it is a good place for large musical festivals- lots of seating, outdoor and close access to the LRT. But after going to the Grey Cup, I can see how much of a CCF Lion's Park LRT station can become trying to handle that volume of passengers, especially since for a concert, not that many people will be coming on buses from Saskatchewan.

cityscape_enthusiast
Apr 1, 2010, 7:25 PM
Does anybody know how many events we are actually missing out on, due to our current facilities? Is Edmonton (or other western Canadian markets) getting a bunch of concerts and festivals that we aren't, specifically because of our facilities? I know that the roof of the Saddledome prevents some acts from setting their stage up, but how many?

Can we justify the massive cost of a new stadium if it simply means 2 more concerts a year?


I think we are missing out on a lot more than just two concerts per year. It seems massive acts usually go to Edmonton instead of us all the time which is always so unfortunate.

frinkprof
Apr 1, 2010, 7:26 PM
Does anybody know how many events we are actually missing out on, due to our current facilities? Is Edmonton (or other western Canadian markets) getting a bunch of concerts and festivals that we aren't, specifically because of our facilities? I know that the roof of the Saddledome prevents some acts from setting their stage up, but how many?

Can we justify the massive cost of a new stadium if it simply means 2 more concerts a year?They got Britney Spears, Tim McGraw, and Justin Timberlake concerts that Calgary couldn't host because of the structural demands the artists' stages had on the arenas. The Saddledome couldn't handle it.

So to answer your question, no Calgary has not missed out on any events.

MichaelS
Apr 1, 2010, 7:28 PM
Tim McGraw played here on Saturday night. So that is two conerts that we have missed so far? Any others?

cityscape_enthusiast
Apr 1, 2010, 7:51 PM
Beyonce (a guilty pleasure :p) is another one we missed out on

Bigtime
Apr 1, 2010, 8:07 PM
They got Britney Spears, Tim McGraw, and Justin Timberlake concerts that Calgary couldn't host because of the structural demands the artists' stages had on the arenas. The Saddledome couldn't handle it.

So to answer your question, no Calgary has not missed out on any events.

I'm okay with missing those performers. JT is cool if he is doing some SNL Digital Short spoof song though.

CorporateWhore
Apr 1, 2010, 8:08 PM
They got Britney Spears, Tim McGraw, and Justin Timberlake concerts that Calgary couldn't host because of the structural demands the artists' stages had on the arenas.

Sounds to me like Calgary dodged a few bullets there.

MonctonGoldenFlames
Apr 1, 2010, 8:15 PM
we missed foo fighters to oilville

fusili
Apr 1, 2010, 8:16 PM
But we did get Tool.

Riise
Apr 1, 2010, 8:24 PM
Besides the economics of it, I don't fancy a new stadium because McMahon brings out the fans that either really enjoy the game or the atmosphere. It helps keep the prawn sandwich crowd in the Dome.


Does anybody know how many events we are actually missing out on, due to our current facilities?

We did miss out on the U17 World Cup, however, we wouldn't have needed a very large stadium to have held some of the group stage matches. The combined lack of a small or medium sized natural turf stadium also prevents us from hosting the senior men's national soccer team's friendlies and qualifiers. Some would say that the lack of a mid-sized stadium also prevents us from hosting club friendlies between European football clubs during their North American-based pre-season training.

Coldrsx
Apr 1, 2010, 8:28 PM
^last year I had the um 'pleasure' of visiting McCrap stadium for the first time in many years and honestly, other than the view of the skyline, it is disgraceful.

Time for an upgrade

Bigtime
Apr 1, 2010, 8:50 PM
^last year I had the um 'pleasure' of visiting McCrap stadium for the first time in many years and honestly, other than the view of the skyline, it is disgraceful.

Time for an upgrade

Wasn't that your "top down on the convertible in the cold weather" trip?

Coldrsx
Apr 1, 2010, 8:51 PM
Wasn't that your "top down on the convertible in the cold weather" trip?

That's the one...

Bigtime
Apr 1, 2010, 8:53 PM
You know in all the games I've attended at McMahon since I was a kid I have always sat on the east side and never seen the view of the skyline from the west stands.

CorporateWhore
Apr 1, 2010, 9:01 PM
Ah, there's no Calgary skyline quite like that late-afternoon warm summer evening at MacMahon, where the light is just so. It's what dreams are made of!

Doug_Cgy
Apr 1, 2010, 10:04 PM
Sounds to me like Calgary dodged a few bullets there.

Its not about liking or disliking a certain artist. Its the fallout from not being able to host these concerts.

So far in the last couple years/this coming year we've missed/are missing out on:

Britney Spears, JT, Beyonce (twice), Reba & Kelly Tour, Carrie Underwood, U2, Lady Gaga, AC/DC etc.

I don't care for half these artist, but it's the fact that:
- our economy loses out
- it's one more thing people can knock Calgary for
- and quite honestly for a city of 1.2 million people, its ridiculous. Saskatoon gets more of these tours than we do and that's not even a stretch!

Jay in Cowtown
Apr 1, 2010, 10:17 PM
Well I'm 110% for a new Flames Arena... I'm not for a new football stadium.

but, it does need major renos someday. I'd like to see them finish the north side of both grandstands to the top corners, replace all bleechers with seats, bigger HD video screen, expanded and better looking luxory suites on the east side and expanded concession/washroom areas on both sides. The dressing room renos look good though.

CorporateWhore
Apr 1, 2010, 10:27 PM
Britney Spears, JT, Beyonce (twice), Reba & Kelly Tour, Carrie Underwood, U2, Lady Gaga, AC/DC etc.

I don't care for half these artist

I'm shocked you still found a half to care for from that group! ;)

I agree with you though, don't worry....the whole scenario is pretty lame.

beachboi-69
Apr 3, 2010, 7:38 AM
It seems like a complete embarrasement that Calgary does not have a venue capable of hosting events of this nature. It's actually unbelievable when they are spending so much money on bridges most people will not use for entertainment.

I really hope something comes together soon... The Flames are important to Calgary's economy alongside potential events. To miss out on these events to Edmonton is a travisty. The money that could be flowing would give downtown more of a push at nightlife.

No knocks against Edmonton.... but it's no Calgary.

I was in Edmonton last spring. I did the mall which was great, however other then that we were so underwhelmed. It felt old and unprogressive almost like Winnipeg. The latter actually felt like a bigger city on first impression.

The mayor's legacy would have been better remembered on a new entertainment complex. Something that every one could have enjoyed at one time or another. Rather then a bridge that is only appealing for a photo of the skyline. It's not appealing to everyone, just the people living in that particular area.

Just My thoughts, while visitng Calgary. I am pretty sure you will get a new arena soon. Unfortunately not soon enough though.

I visit my sister in Calgary as often as possible and it's a great place, that is going places. It's sad that it lacks in this particular area.

frinkprof
Apr 3, 2010, 1:19 PM
It seems like a complete embarrasement that Calgary does not have a venue capable of hosting events of this nature. It's actually unbelievable when they are spending so much money on bridges most people will not use for entertainment.

I really hope something comes together soon... The Flames are important to Calgary's economy alongside potential events. To miss out on these events to Edmonton is a travisty. The money that could be flowing would give downtown more of a push at nightlife.

No knocks against Edmonton.... but it's no Calgary.

I was in Edmonton last spring. I did the mall which was great, however other then that we were so underwhelmed. It felt old and unprogressive almost like Winnipeg. The latter actually felt like a bigger city on first impression.

The mayor's legacy would have been better remembered on a new entertainment complex. Something that every one could have enjoyed at one time or another. Rather then a bridge that is only appealing for a photo of the skyline. It's not appealing to everyone, just the people living in that particular area.

Just My thoughts, while visitng Calgary. I am pretty sure you will get a new arena soon. Unfortunately not soon enough though.

I visit my sister in Calgary as often as possible and it's a great place, that is going places. It's sad that it lacks in this particular area.Insulting Winnipeg, Edmonton, and bridges all in one post? You know not the shitstorm you hath brought.

Seriously though,

I am assuming the "they" you refer to is the City of Calgary, and the bridges you refer to are the two pedestrian bridges crossing the Bow River.

1. It is not "unbelievable when they are spending so much money on bridges..." Are you saying the City should drop all other priorities including bridges, roads, LRT extensions, fire halls, community recreation centres, and utilities to build an entertainment facility so Britney Spears can play a concert? Yes it woud be a boost to the economy, but at what expense? The fact is that there are plenty of projects, many of which have a higher priority than concert facilities, and for good reason.

2. You say "...bridges most people will not use for entertainment," Of course most people will not use them for entertainment. First and foremost, most people will use them for their transportation needs, which require them to cross the river. Many will also use them for recreational riding or jogging. How does the need for entertainment trump the need for two important pieces of transportation infrastructure?

3. Even if you put a new arena as the top priority over bridges and several other projects (because it would take that much money, something on the order of $300M), this ignores the sources of funding of these projects. One pedestrian bridge is being paid for by provincial grant money that can only be used on transportation infrastructure. Thus, the money can not be used on entertainment facilities, cultural infrastructure, snow clearing, or any other such expenditure. The other bridge is being paid for by the Calgary Municipal Land Corporation through funds acquired from land sales in the East Village. Again, not money that would otherwise be used on a new arena.

4. The new arena should and will be paid for mostly by private funds, namely the Calgary Flames organization. Some public monies from the City and/or province may end up going to the arena. However, it most certainly will not be paid for in full by the City, nor on the whim of any mayor, whether it be Bronconnier, Lord, McIver, or the chicken farmer.

5. You say "The mayor's legacy would have been better remembered on a new entertainment complex." Plenty of people in this City would have hit the roof had the City paid for a new arena, including myself. You think the media-concocted outrage over two bridges was intense? The City paying for a new arena would have surpassed that tenfold. We're talking $300M+ here, not $50M, none of which has an affect on property taxes. The Calgary Flames organization can and will pay for most of the new arena, as they should.

6. Finally, you say "Rather then [sic] a bridge that is only appealing for a photo of the skyline. It's not appealing to everyone, just the people living in that particular area." This is just plain incorrect. Plenty of people will find it appealing beyond "a photo of the skyline." Many people will find it appealing while using it, passing by, looking out their office, train, or car window, and plenty of other scenarios. Many of these people, including myself, do not live in the area. Your statement is just off-base and absurd. Although you do not explicitly say that the only use of the pedestrian bridges is for aesthetics, I don't think it's a huge leap to read this into what you wrote. Their primary use is as tranportation links across the river, simple as that.

Wentworth
Apr 3, 2010, 5:28 PM
^ I just assume that someone named "Beach Boy 69" is here for trolling.

I also do not think a new arena is a huge infrastructure priority for the city, and bringing big out-of-town acts into the city would, if anything, be a negative draw on the local economy.

One thing, though, the argument about infrastructure dollars being earmarked by the province for one thing or another does not hold much weight with me. It may be true, but it is also a condemnation of the municipal-provincial taxation and funding scheme as a whole.

frinkprof
Apr 3, 2010, 6:01 PM
^ I just assume that someone named "Beach Boy 69" is here for trolling.Yeah, I would normally think that, but then it would have to be a case of,

1. Create an account in August.

2. Make some posts a few months ago that seem harmless and/or in line with the sort of stuff most people here post about.

3. All of a sudden the following March decide to make a post filled with common misconceptions about bridge projects in Calgary and a new arena.

4. ???

5. Profit.

I don't know, just seems like a one-off brainfart post to me. Not really trolling.

bringing big out-of-town acts into the city would, if anything, be a negative draw on the local economy.How do you figure?

One thing, though, the argument about infrastructure dollars being earmarked by the province for one thing or another does not hold much weight with me. It may be true, but it is also a condemnation of the municipal-provincial taxation and funding scheme as a whole.Yeah I can see that point. If that weren't the case though, and the money had come no-strings-attached or had been raised by the City under a different taxation and funding structure, it probably still would have gone to transportation infrastructure. If not transporation, certainly not an arena project.

beachboi-69
Apr 8, 2010, 7:43 AM
I never meant to spark anything other then conversations/ discussions in this thread. That opinion that now sounds bad on my part was only meant in a postive manor.

I never meant to put Edmonton or Winnipeg down. I was expressing my impressions of both places when I visited. I am not a troll.... never been called that before.

I might be a redneck American or labled that, but I adore Calgary! It's awesome visiting everytime and it's simply impressive what is going on right now.

Let me re-phrase "Calgary is a world class city, that should be capable of hosting major world class event's much like it has in the past (Olympics) and into the future.

Oddly.... Since I last posted my comment and got called a troll or trolling... whatever that means????

The biggest selling female artist of the past 5 years ... Snubbed "Edmonton" with a date in "Calgary" For July 6th 2010..... Most artists would prefer to come to "Calgary" over "Edmonton" it's completely out of the way. But if they use the Amptheatre layout "Saddledome" will not work in the future.


Don't get me into it... I work in the music industry and I am not a troll!... Calgary is a great city that needs a new venue for the other concerts.

fusili
Apr 8, 2010, 4:46 PM
Just for your reference Beachboi, trolling refers to posting on a forum with the sole intent of trying to get people riled up. This usually involves insults etc. Also known as "starting s*#t." It would be like me posting on the Vancouver forum that the Canucks suck and are all a bunch of dirty sleaze bags (just an example, not something I believe). Doesn't add much to the discussion and just gets people going.

Bigtime
Apr 8, 2010, 4:55 PM
Just for your reference Beachboi, trolling refers to posting on a forum with the sole intent of trying to get people riled up. This usually involves insults etc. Also known as "starting s*#t." It would be like me posting on the Vancouver forum that the Canucks suck and are all a bunch of dirty sleaze bags (just an example, not something I believe). Doesn't add much to the discussion and just gets people going.

http://www.searchviews.com/wp-content/themes/clean-copy-full-3-column-1/images/the_more_you_know2.jpg (http://www.searchviews.com/wp-content/themes/clean-copy-full-3-column-1/images/the_more_you_know2.jpg)

fusili
Apr 8, 2010, 4:58 PM
http://www.searchviews.com/wp-content/themes/clean-copy-full-3-column-1/images/the_more_you_know2.jpg (http://www.searchviews.com/wp-content/themes/clean-copy-full-3-column-1/images/the_more_you_know2.jpg)

I fell like a celebrity talking about the dangers of drugs to children. Just like Denzel. You tell 'em man, you tell 'em.

freeweed
Apr 8, 2010, 5:12 PM
http://www.searchviews.com/wp-content/themes/clean-copy-full-3-column-1/images/the_more_you_know2.jpg (http://www.searchviews.com/wp-content/themes/clean-copy-full-3-column-1/images/the_more_you_know2.jpg)

Stewie: Stupid, greedy savages!

Lois: Stewie, that's a terrible thing to say. This one particular tribe has lost their way. But most Native Americans are proud, hardworking people who are true to their spiritual heritage. They are certainly not savages. ["The More You Know" logo and sound]

Stewie: That's funny, Mother. Just this morning you said they were lazy, like the dirty Mexicans. Just kidding. The Mexicans are a clean and industrious people with a rich cultural heritage. ["The More You Know" logo and sound]

Meg: Yeah. Not like those dumb, gargantuan Swedes. Actually, the Swedish people run the gamut from very short to tall. And did you know that Sweden gave us the brilliant inventor, Alfred Nobel? ["The More You Know" logo and sound]

Peter: Yeah. Which is more than we ever got from those freeloading Canadians. [pause] Canada sucks.

Jay in Cowtown
Apr 8, 2010, 5:24 PM
I never meant to spark anything other then conversations/ discussions in this thread. That opinion that now sounds bad on my part was only meant in a postive manor.

I never meant to put Edmonton or Winnipeg down. I was expressing my impressions of both places when I visited. I am not a troll.... never been called that before.

I might be a redneck American or labled that, but I adore Calgary! It's awesome visiting everytime and it's simply impressive what is going on right now.

Let me re-phrase "Calgary is a world class city, that should be capable of hosting major world class event's much like it has in the past (Olympics) and into the future.

Oddly.... Since I last posted my comment and got called a troll or trolling... whatever that means????

The biggest selling female artist of the past 5 years ... Snubbed "Edmonton" with a date in "Calgary" For July 6th 2010..... Most artists would prefer to come to "Calgary" over "Edmonton" it's completely out of the way. But if they use the Amptheatre layout "Saddledome" will not work in the future.


Don't get me into it... I work in the music industry and I am not a troll!... Calgary is a great city that needs a new venue for the other concerts.


Don't worry about it... I didn't see anything in your statements that made me think you were trolling. In fact outside of this forum most Calgarians think the pedestrian bridge is a waste of money, and the truth is most people that visit the 3 cities you mentioned do in fact claim Calgary is better by far... and I'm sure you were only thinking Calgary forumers would welcome some Edmonton bashing, but we actually feel sorry for our brothers up north because we know that they know how much better our city is, so we generally stay clear of making them feel bad. ;)

and you're 100% right that Calgary needs a new arena... we miss out on a lot of concerts and revenue because of the Saddledome's design, not to mention it's dated now.

frinkprof
Apr 8, 2010, 5:25 PM
I never meant to spark anything other then conversations/ discussions in this thread. That opinion that now sounds bad on my part was only meant in a postive manor.

I never meant to put Edmonton or Winnipeg down. I was expressing my impressions of both places when I visited. I am not a troll.... never been called that before.

I might be a redneck American or labled that, but I adore Calgary! It's awesome visiting everytime and it's simply impressive what is going on right now.

Let me re-phrase "Calgary is a world class city, that should be capable of hosting major world class event's much like it has in the past (Olympics) and into the future.

Oddly.... Since I last posted my comment and got called a troll or trolling... whatever that means????

The biggest selling female artist of the past 5 years ... Snubbed "Edmonton" with a date in "Calgary" For July 6th 2010..... Most artists would prefer to come to "Calgary" over "Edmonton" it's completely out of the way. But if they use the Amptheatre layout "Saddledome" will not work in the future.


Don't get me into it... I work in the music industry and I am not a troll!... Calgary is a great city that needs a new venue for the other concerts.No hard feelings beachboi. As I mentioned before, I don't think you were trolling. Regarding the Edmonton and Winnipeg comments, I don't personally care too much if people say negative things about those cities. It's just that doing so in the past on this forum has resulted in a shitstorm of overly-defensive people from those cities going nuts. Thankfully, that doesn't happen much anymore because a couple of them were actual trolls and were banned from the forum.

Regarding the comments you made about the bridges, I just found them a bit misguided and figured I would correct some things. As you may or may not know, these bridge projects have been a lightning rod of negativity in the Calgary media and amongst citizens, a lot of which is based on some misguided concepts or outright false information. Several of us on the forum have been doing lots of debating on and off the forum about bridges and trying to cut through some of the misinformation. So forgive me for getting a bit "defensive" about the bridges.

Keep on keepin' on man.

beachboi-69
Apr 12, 2010, 6:47 AM
No hard feelings beachboi. As I mentioned before, I don't think you were trolling. Regarding the Edmonton and Winnipeg comments, I don't personally care too much if people say negative things about those cities. It's just that doing so in the past on this forum has resulted in a shitstorm of overly-defensive people from those cities going nuts. Thankfully, that doesn't happen much anymore because a couple of them were actual trolls and were banned from the forum.

Regarding the comments you made about the bridges, I just found them a bit misguided and figured I would correct some things. As you may or may not know, these bridge projects have been a lightning rod of negativity in the Calgary media and amongst citizens, a lot of which is based on some misguided concepts or outright false information. Several of us on the forum have been doing lots of debating on and off the forum about bridges and trying to cut through some of the misinformation. So forgive me for getting a bit "defensive" about the bridges.

Keep on keepin' on man.

Thank you

You are right, my thoughts regarding the bridges were miss informed. This has only become more clear after some research. I apologise for perhaps saying a bit to much of my opinion regarding the new bridges. My bad.

The media has been rather nasty about the costs. Thats all I was going on.

:)

beachboi-69
Apr 12, 2010, 7:05 AM
Just for your reference Beachboi, trolling refers to posting on a forum with the sole intent of trying to get people riled up. This usually involves insults etc. Also known as "starting s*#t." It would be like me posting on the Vancouver forum that the Canucks suck and are all a bunch of dirty sleaze bags (just an example, not something I believe). Doesn't add much to the discussion and just gets people going.

I like sparking Ideas and conversations... only to become more educated with others knowledge.

Insults, I think I might have accidentally done that without intentions.

Anyways peace out bro's

CorporateWhore
Jun 29, 2010, 1:44 PM
Not sure how many people here frequent CP, but some interesting notes from Ken King's Info Session Yesterday. Notes provided by "slots881", not me.

New building is 2-4 years away, will be downtown but they have looked at an alternate downtown location which is not on the Stampede grounds but is on the c-train line

-Building will be structurally modern, don’t remember the exact term Ken always used but basically it will be set up so that movement to and from concessions and seats will be much easier

-Two models for the new building will be Columbus and Minnesota arenas

-There won’t be more seats in the new building, KK believes you can have too many seats

-Old Saddledome will be torn down, new building will not look the same


Interesting to note that while the building may not be on the Stampede grounds itself, if they are using Columbus and Minnesota as models to follow, it will probably still retain some form of stampitecture/heritage looking elements. In the end, it's not surprising....while I think most of us would love to see something more like Sprint Center in Kansas, it's just not that realistic for a group of oil men to want to be purely modern.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 29, 2010, 1:48 PM
Hmm, land on the C - Train line... so Greyhound site? or maybe one of the lots south of the CP mainline?

MichaelS
Jun 29, 2010, 2:20 PM
Any mention of where they are getting funding for it?

Wooster
Jun 29, 2010, 2:30 PM
Ken King is going about things more intelligently than the Oilers are on their new downtown arena project. Working primarily behind the scenes with officials I'm sure, building a case for funding, location, design.

If it does go off of Stampede, it will free their design up a bit from the shackles of stampitecture.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 29, 2010, 2:41 PM
^ For funding I would guess a mixture of TIF, personal seat licenses, maybe a dedicated lottery (like there was during the tough years for the Alberta clubs financially), loans, and long term box leasing.

If you are able to average $5k a seat, that is $90,000,000. Plus average $500k for box rights for what they want (last I heard) ~160 boxes is another $80 million. Add another $30 for naming rights for the building and other 'zones', the beer and pop contract etc.

Flames themselves if the buy land would be expected to contribute $100 million, if they borrow it from the city, perhaps $50 million. (it would be a good investment to buy land in the heart of the city so you can flip it in 30 years to build an even better barn). Having full control is what they want, so they need to pay.

freeweed
Jun 29, 2010, 3:28 PM
-There won’t be more seats in the new building, KK believes you can have too many seats

Important note that not a lot of people understand at first glance. In fact, expect the capacity to be somewhat LESS if anything. Maybe in the 17,500-18,000 range - compared to the Saddledome's current 19,289 capacity for hockey.

Those extra nosebleed seats cost a lot to construct and maintain, and end up bringing in very little extra money. In many arenas they're actually revenue negative (ie: they lose money just having them).

The NHL went on a "bigger is better" plan about 15 years ago, but they've since realized that this doesn't work unless you have the best market with the richest fans. Toronto and Montreal can do it, but that's about it. The trend these days is to go medium-sized.

Incidentally, this is also why Winnipeg is being seriously looked at for a team, even with their 15,000 seat rink. "Common sense" would say that that's nuts, but the building owners have realized that another 3000 seats wouldn't really add to the bottom line. No one will pay $100/ticket to sit in the 'bleeds.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 29, 2010, 3:34 PM
Biggest issue with the 'Peg is only 48 suites, but then again is there the business base to fill more? I am always surprised the new Edmonton centre is to come near what Calgary has currently for suites, where as Calgary wants to have many many more.

Riise
Jun 29, 2010, 3:57 PM
^ For funding I would guess a mixture of TIF, personal seat licenses, maybe a dedicated lottery (like there was during the tough years for the Alberta clubs financially), loans, and long term box leasing.

Instead of personal seat licenses, I'd rather see the Flames start a Supporters/Members Club. It can provide a large revenue stream and is not nearly as exclusive, to the contrary it would probably allow more people to feel like they are a part of the club.


Those extra nosebleed seats cost a lot to construct and maintain, and end up bringing in very little extra money. In many arenas they're actually revenue negative (ie: they lose money just having them).

As someone who is anti-prawn sandwich crowd, I wonder if terraces would be feasible. They could bring in as much, maybe even more, money but wouldn't have the same maintenance or infrastructure costs.

Coldrsx
Jun 29, 2010, 4:02 PM
Let's get the province to do what they did with the Jubes... two identical rinks, built at the same time, fully funded by the province.

:)

Wooster
Jun 29, 2010, 4:07 PM
Let's get the province to do what they did with the Jubes... two identical rinks, built at the same time, fully funded by the province.

:)

Maybe same funding level, but not same design.

Coldrsx
Jun 29, 2010, 4:14 PM
Maybe same funding level, but not same design.

but then we would lose our economies of scale and scope...

Calgarian
Jun 29, 2010, 4:25 PM
If it looks anything like the Xcel Energy Center, I would be happy, that'sa pretty nice building. Nationwide Arena and the American Airlines Arena are Stampitecture and I want no part of either.

Why does the Saddledome have to be torn down? If Calgary ever wants another major international winter event it would help to have 2 major arenas. Also, if we host some big figure skating event or the Brier the Flames won't have to go on a 10 game road trip while the building is in use.

Wooster
Jun 29, 2010, 4:32 PM
but then we would lose our economies of scale and scope...

Building should be designed to suit its specific context. These are being built in respective downtowns, not in open fields.

Coldrsx
Jun 29, 2010, 4:39 PM
Building should be designed to suit its specific context. These are being built in respective downtowns, not in open fields.

i am obviously joking guys...:jester:

suburb
Jun 29, 2010, 6:39 PM
Interesting to note that while the building may not be on the Stampede grounds itself, if they are using Columbus and Minnesota as models to follow, it will probably still retain some form of stampitecture/heritage looking elements. In the end, it's not surprising....while I think most of us would love to see something more like Sprint Center in Kansas, it's just not that realistic for a group of oil men to want to be purely modern.

With the convention centre looking to expand or transplant, I would have thought that they would consider being co-located with that (as opposed to BMO / Round-Up Centre). That type of arrangement, like at the LA convention centre with the Staples centre, allows for more flexibility for very large events.

freeweed
Jun 29, 2010, 7:08 PM
As someone who is anti-prawn sandwich crowd

Mind explaining the phrase to me? I have no clue what you mean by this, and I'm mildly afraid to use the word "prawn" in Google searches these days. :P

Bigtime
Jun 29, 2010, 7:20 PM
Mind explaining the phrase to me? I have no clue what you mean by this, and I'm mildly afraid to use the word "prawn" in Google searches these days. :P

I believe he means he would rather have less corporate box style attendees, you know the type that are too busy eating fancy food in their boxes to pay any attention to the game at hand. Instead he would rather have more seats for the "real" fans that don't mind getting loud and having a good time!

I've been in a 2nd level box a couple of times, but we partied hard and were rowdy. Big bonus is those boxes have their own toilets, I'd kill for that kind of luxury when I'm downing heroin beers like they are going out of style.

mersar
Jun 29, 2010, 7:46 PM
Hmm, land on the C - Train line... so Greyhound site? or maybe one of the lots south of the CP mainline?

Remington's Railtown lands. Of course this means on the future SE LRT instead of the current network, but in time it will be connected. From what I've heard from a few sources who have sources (so take it with a grain of salt), the Stampede Board and Flames ownership group aren't on the best of terms any more. Any new arena will be designed in a way to maximize TV revenues, so I wouldn't be too surprised to see them propose a giant brick or steel box.

freeweed
Jun 29, 2010, 7:53 PM
I believe he means he would rather have less corporate box style attendees, you know the type that are too busy eating fancy food in their boxes to pay any attention to the game at hand. Instead he would rather have more seats for the "real" fans that don't mind getting loud and having a good time!

As a fan I'd be all for this. It kills me to see the cheap bleeder seats going away (it's where I generally choose to be). Financially, it'll never happen. Boxes just bring in way too much revenue.

jsbertram
Jun 29, 2010, 8:23 PM
Hmm, land on the C - Train line... so Greyhound site? or maybe one of the lots south of the CP mainline?

I wonder if there is talk again of a new facility at the old Firestone site (Memorial Dr & Barlow Tr.) ?

Is seems that land is usually included in many stadium / arena planning conversations in the decades since Firestone closed the plant (leaving the tower as a site marker)

I'm surprised with its location being so close to the Barlow /Max Bell CTrain station that the site hasn't been redeveloped as a compact office park, or some some cheap housing.

jsbertram
Jun 29, 2010, 8:41 PM
If it looks anything like the Xcel Energy Center, I would be happy, that'sa pretty nice building. Nationwide Arena and the American Airlines Arena are Stampitecture and I want no part of either.

Why does the Saddledome have to be torn down? If Calgary ever wants another major international winter event it would help to have 2 major arenas. Also, if we host some big figure skating event or the Brier the Flames won't have to go on a 10 game road trip while the building is in use.

If the Stampede Corral is still standing after 60 years (officially opened on December 15, 1950), I don't see why the Saddledome needs to be knocked down after barely 25 years.

I would have thought by now the Corral would be knocked over and the Roundup Centre expanded over the site so there is an easier connection to the Saddledome.

Bigtime
Jun 29, 2010, 8:42 PM
Please not Firestone Park, nothing around it for fans. We need to keep it near the Beltline/CBD just for the entertainment options available pre/post-game.

fusili
Jun 29, 2010, 8:45 PM
I wonder if there is talk again of a new facility at the old Firestone site (Memorial Dr & Barlow Tr.) ?

Is seems that land is usually included in many stadium / arena planning conversations in the decades since Firestone closed the plant (leaving the tower as a site marker)

I'm surprised with its location being so close to the Barlow /Max Bell CTrain station that the site hasn't been redeveloped as a compact office park, or some some cheap housing.

One reason: Sanitary sewer lines. To connect to the sanitary sewer system that site has to run a sewer line all the way under Deerfoot. That is a huge cost and unless the City pays for some, it isn't going to happen.

Calgarian
Jun 30, 2010, 1:01 AM
Please not Firestone Park, nothing around it for fans. We need to keep it near the Beltline/CBD just for the entertainment options available pre/post-game.

I agree. Firepark is close to the c-train and is an under utilized location, but the arena belongs downtown.

The Greyhound site would be decent, though there are no bars there for fans to go to before and after the game. My preference would be the 2 empty blocks just north of the dome.

Innersoul1
Jun 30, 2010, 2:08 PM
Courtesy of Buckeybullmoose:

Nationwide Arena Columbus
http://buckeyebullmoose.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/columbus-ohio-nationwide-arena.jpg
http://image.cdnl3.xosnetwork.com/pics17/0/CL/CLAMHKMJMQETZJG.20080605144010.jpg

Courtesy of the Xcel Energy Centre:

http://www.xcelenergycenter.com/files/Xcel_Ice.jpg

nick.flood
Jun 30, 2010, 6:12 PM
As far as the exterior design, the Xcel arena is a far nicer stadium than Nationwide. Neither are really that unique however. Nationwide is boxy and looks like a baseball stadium, and there's no need to mention the word stampitecture.

Nationwide does work better @ streetscape (in it's context) and fits into the neighbourhood but this is still a hockey stadium and I think you're better off designing a modern standout instead of trying to hide it.

SubwayRev
Jun 30, 2010, 6:21 PM
I was at one of the information sessions on Monday as well, and King did emphasize that it would be downtown; not near downtown and not in the 'burbs. So, I think we can rule Firestone park out.

He also said that for financing, they would look to the city for land, but that's about it.

He also said they would be looking to nearly double the amount of suites.

Lastly, he said the Saddledome would be no more. As much as everybody loves it, there are several reasons to tear it down. Most of that is cost. It would be too expensive to use it once in a blue moon. The Flames, Hitmen and all major concerts would be in the new arena, leaving the Saddledome to become Stade Olympique Ouest. They simply cannot have two major arenas competing against each other.

Stang
Jun 30, 2010, 6:27 PM
Lastly, he said the Saddledome would be no more. As much as everybody loves it, there are several reasons to tear it down. Most of that is cost. It would be too expensive to use it once in a blue moon. The Flames, Hitmen and all major concerts would be in the new arena, leaving the Saddledome to become Stade Olympique Ouest. They simply cannot have two major arenas competing against each other.

It would be really cool if they could re-purpose it into something else like a hotel, but it would probably be cheaper for a developer to start from scratch somewhere else than to convert a 30-year-old, saddle-shaped stadium into anything new.

Bigtime
Jun 30, 2010, 7:05 PM
I wonder if this "Saddledome coming down" news hits fast enough if any of our mayoralty candidates will say they'll save it if they get elected?

Riise
Jun 30, 2010, 7:26 PM
I believe he means he would rather have less corporate box style attendees, you know the type that are too busy eating fancy food in their boxes to pay any attention to the game at hand. Instead he would rather have more seats for the "real" fans that don't mind getting loud and having a good time!

Almost spot on BT. I'd just like to clarify that I don't want to see less boxes, with people eating their prawn sandwiches instead of getting up and getting loud, I just don't want the cheap seats to be forgotten and removed. Personally, I'd like the see the same amount remain or be increased. Maybe terraces (i.e. standing-room) are one way of allowing this to feasibly occur.


It would be really cool if they could re-purpose it into something else like a hotel, but it would probably be cheaper for a developer to start from scratch somewhere else than to convert a 30-year-old, saddle-shaped stadium into anything new.

I really hope we get an innovative architectural philanthropist!

YYCguys
Jun 30, 2010, 7:29 PM
It would be really cool if they could re-purpose it into something else like a hotel, but it would probably be cheaper for a developer to start from scratch somewhere else than to convert a 30-year-old, saddle-shaped stadium into anything new.

Did King say specifically if the Dome was to be demolished or just converted to another use?

Stang, I think you have a splendid idea about the Dome being repurposed into a hotel! It would be neat to have a hotel shaped like a Saddle, something unique to Calgary.

It's in the Stampede's master plans to have a hotel on the grounds. If the Dome was torn down, their master plan would have to be reworked.

fusili
Jun 30, 2010, 7:50 PM
Did King say specifically if the Dome was to be demolished or just converted to another use?

Stang, I think you have a splendid idea about the Dome being repurposed into a hotel! It would be neat to have a hotel shaped like a Saddle, something unique to Calgary.

It's in the Stampede's master plans to have a hotel on the grounds. If the Dome was torn down, their master plan would have to be reworked.

I really do not see how that could actually work. How would the structure be formed and how would the rooms be configured? Seems like a pipe dream to me.

nick.flood
Jun 30, 2010, 8:13 PM
I really do not see how that could actually work. How would the structure be formed and how would the rooms be configured? Seems like a pipe dream to me.

Multi floors of suites surrounding the exterior, and opposite corridor interior suites surrounding a pool & waterslide. Pool can be converted back to a hockey rink for tourist leisure skating.

fusili
Jun 30, 2010, 8:19 PM
Multi floors of suites surrounding the exterior, and opposite corridor interior suites surrounding a pool & waterslide. Pool can be converted back to a hockey rink for tourist leisure skating.

Cool. If it can be done, I am all for it. Just seems like a pretty massive space.

nick.flood
Jun 30, 2010, 8:22 PM
You'd have to find some way to get natural light into the center, but maybe there's some way to do some skylights in the existing roof. Place would be full during Stampede but the rest of the year it's a bit out of the way for a hotel.

Ramsayfarian
Jun 30, 2010, 8:33 PM
Did King say specifically if the Dome was to be demolished or just converted to another use?

Stang, I think you have a splendid idea about the Dome being repurposed into a hotel! It would be neat to have a hotel shaped like a Saddle, something unique to Calgary.

It's in the Stampede's master plans to have a hotel on the grounds. If the Dome was torn down, their master plan would have to be reworked.

Turn it into a giant skateboard park.

Stang
Jun 30, 2010, 8:49 PM
I'll be the first to admit that it is unlikely, and I also recall hearing the idea for a hotel somewhere else before (maybe even SSP?).

It would be a difficult to tear down because it is a landmark and a unique building, and for being "only" 30 years old, has a fair amount of history. But, if Yankee Stadium, Boston Garden, Wembley Stadium, etc. can be torn down in the name of progress, our Saddledome certainly can be too.

I would imagine that, if gutted completely on the inside to a bare shell, a hotel could work. It almost certainly wouldn't be practical in a financial sense, and as nick.flood mentioned, it would be hard to convince people to stay there outside of Stampede as it would be competing with hotels that are literally right in the downtown core.

Along the same lines, I do see this becoming a political issue in this city. There is a sentimental attachment because of the Olympics, and many Calgarians feel an attachment to the building even if they're not a sports fan per se.

SubwayRev
Jun 30, 2010, 9:01 PM
Did King say specifically if the Dome was to be demolished or just converted to another use?

Stang, I think you have a splendid idea about the Dome being repurposed into a hotel! It would be neat to have a hotel shaped like a Saddle, something unique to Calgary.

It's in the Stampede's master plans to have a hotel on the grounds. If the Dome was torn down, their master plan would have to be reworked.

I heard him say it would be torn down, but then again...that isn't his or the Flames' decision. That would be for the City and the Stampede to decide, once the lease is up in 2014.

With a new arena, the Saddledome wouldn't have any tennants, or any raison d'etre really, I don't see why they wouldn't tear it down to build something else. That is prime real estate along the river that could be put to a better use than propping up an un-used arena.

Stang
Jun 30, 2010, 9:06 PM
I heard him say it would be torn down, but then again...that isn't his or the Flames' decision. That would be for the City and the Stampede to decide, once the lease is up in 2014.

With a new arena, the Saddledome wouldn't have any tennants, or any raison d'etre really, I don't see why they wouldn't tear it down to build something else. That is prime real estate along the river that could be put to a better use than propping up an un-used arena.

That's exactly it. The Flames can move out at the end of their lease, which would make good financial sense for them to do (more revenue from boxes, etc.). I don't see taxpayers wanting to be on the hook for a vacant stadium, or for massive renovations/re-purposing.

mersar
Jun 30, 2010, 9:16 PM
King may have said that the Dome is coming down, but I'd take that with a grain of salt as its not their decision to make. He'd no doubt love for it to come down if the Flames build and own their own facility, as the Dome would be in competition with them, but if the numbers I've heard in the past about how many days a year the dome is booked for (something like 250?), move the 80 or so hockey games (between the hitmen and flames) over to the new arena, the case may be made for the city and/or stampede to compete with the Flames for the rest of those events. And undoubtedly having the new arena would increase the number of events overall as the ones that simply couldn't use the dome would go there.

CtrlAltDel
Jun 30, 2010, 9:40 PM
King may have said that the Dome is coming down, but I'd take that with a grain of salt as its not their decision to make. He'd no doubt love for it to come down if the Flames build and own their own facility, as the Dome would be in competition with them, but if the numbers I've heard in the past about how many days a year the dome is booked for (something like 250?), move the 80 or so hockey games (between the hitmen and flames) over to the new arena, the case may be made for the city and/or stampede to compete with the Flames for the rest of those events. And undoubtedly having the new arena would increase the number of events overall as the ones that simply couldn't use the dome would go there.

I agree, the city is growing...it can and will be able to support both. Besides, enough buildings are torn down in this city. Ripping down the Saddledome would be like tearing down the Calgary Tower. It may not be the nicest of structures, but it's distinctly Calgary.

I’ve heard GEC Architects are still gunning for the design of the new place, as they did the Saddledome. I hope it goes to a competition however. That way the public can be certain the most unimpressive design is selected. :rolleyes:

MichaelS
Jun 30, 2010, 10:23 PM
That's exactly it. The Flames can move out at the end of their lease, which would make good financial sense for them to do (more revenue from boxes, etc.). I don't see taxpayers wanting to be on the hook for a vacant stadium, or for massive renovations/re-purposing.

How much financial sense it makes for them depends on how they pay for the new arena. It would take a lot of revenue from box seats to cover the full cost of a new stadium.

If they have government contributions, that would help. But do you see taxpayers wanting to be on the hook for a new stadium?

Stang
Jun 30, 2010, 11:50 PM
How much financial sense it makes for them depends on how they pay for the new arena. It would take a lot of revenue from box seats to cover the full cost of a new stadium.

If they have government contributions, that would help. But do you see taxpayers wanting to be on the hook for a new stadium?

That's a good point. With both Calgary and Edmonton looking to build new stadiums in the next few years, you can bet that both clubs will be asking for government money. That might not go over all that well when, as far as the average citizen is concerned, the Saddledome is just fine.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out, for sure.

jsbertram
Jul 1, 2010, 12:26 AM
King may have said that the Dome is coming down, but I'd take that with a grain of salt as its not their decision to make. He'd no doubt love for it to come down if the Flames build and own their own facility, as the Dome would be in competition with them, but if the numbers I've heard in the past about how many days a year the dome is booked for (something like 250?), move the 80 or so hockey games (between the hitmen and flames) over to the new arena, the case may be made for the city and/or stampede to compete with the Flames for the rest of those events. And undoubtedly having the new arena would increase the number of events overall as the ones that simply couldn't use the dome would go there.

How busy is the Corral with its 6K seats capacity?
I've heard for years the Big Four building will be knocked over, so perhaps replacing the Corral with a new Big Four building that has the same amount of exhibition floor space (or more), and it also acts like an expansion of the Roundup Center and as the connector between the Saddledome.

If the Big Four building was knocked over, what would the Stampede put on the west edge of their land along the CTrain line & MacLeod Trail?

mersar
Jul 1, 2010, 12:45 AM
If the Big Four building was knocked over, what would the Stampede put on the west edge of their land along the CTrain line & MacLeod Trail?

See the Stampede Master Plan (which if the Saddledome goes would need a major revision):

http://calgarystampede.com/upload/body_image/174/09/2009_dec_masterplan-large.jpg

Essentially the plan is to tear down the Big Four (and soon according to some reports), expand the Round Up Centre south and run 17th Avenue into the park.

mwalker_mw
Jul 1, 2010, 2:50 PM
The demolition of the Big Four building seemed to be mentioned a lot a year or two ago, however, more recently what I've heard seems to indicate a longer term before anything happens. They have definitely put some money into cosmetic stuff inside turning the old casino into exhibition space which would suggest it will be around for at least a few more years. (The Stampede isn't known for spending money they don't have to on aesthetics... just look at the original RUC halls)

SubwayRev
Aug 31, 2010, 8:25 PM
I was at a luncheon with Ken King today at the Saddledome, and he said again that when a new arena is built, the Saddledome would come down. It was actually kind of funny, he said, "when I first said this about a year ago, people looked at me like I had just asked that Lassie be shot. Now I tell people, the Saddledome will be decomissioned from it's present use. Lassie still gets shot, but it sounds a lot nicer."

Basically, he said, and I agree with him, that the city cannot support two full sized arenas, and it's in the best interest of both of them to only have one.

He also said the site would be two blocks north of the Dome. In the past, he's only said that was one of the sites they were looking at, but today only talked of that location.

Bigtime
Aug 31, 2010, 8:27 PM
He also said the site would be two blocks north of the Dome. In the past, he's only said that was one of the sites they were looking at, but today only talked of that location.

Hello increased resale prices at arriVa. :cool:

nick.flood
Aug 31, 2010, 8:29 PM
Hello increased resale prices at arriVa. :cool:

Smart investment Bigtime!

Bigtime
Aug 31, 2010, 8:31 PM
Now I just have to make sure I can afford to keep my condo if we buy a home in the inner-city also.

This potential new development makes it mighty tempting.

Ramsayfarian
Aug 31, 2010, 10:24 PM
That would be a pretty easy move from the Flames standpoint, especially when one takes in account the small number of banners that will need to be moved.

MichaelS
Aug 31, 2010, 10:26 PM
I was at a luncheon with Ken King today at the Saddledome, and he said again that when a new arena is built, the Saddledome would come down. It was actually kind of funny, he said, "when I first said this about a year ago, people looked at me like I had just asked that Lassie be shot. Now I tell people, the Saddledome will be decomissioned from it's present use. Lassie still gets shot, but it sounds a lot nicer."

Basically, he said, and I agree with him, that the city cannot support two full sized arenas, and it's in the best interest of both of them to only have one.

He also said the site would be two blocks north of the Dome. In the past, he's only said that was one of the sites they were looking at, but today only talked of that location.

But have the two parties (Government and Flames) agreed on which one is the best? Existing Saddledome or new arena?

Riise
Aug 31, 2010, 10:38 PM
Basically, he said, and I agree with him, that the city cannot support two full sized arenas, and it's in the best interest of both of them to only have one.

Not that I'm saying the Dome needs to stay as a Sports/Entertainment venue, as I'm open to create/adaptive reuse, but you have to remember where Mr. King stands. He is the President and CEO of the organization that will be running the Dome's number one competitor for events in the future.

YYCguys
Aug 31, 2010, 11:16 PM
I can't remember if I mentioned this before or not, but if a new arena is built, then I wonder if the Dome could be repurposed into a cool hotel!

Bigtime
Sep 1, 2010, 1:33 AM
That would be a pretty easy move from the Flames standpoint, especially when one takes in account the small number of banners that will need to be moved.

Oh no you didn't!