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

freeweed
Sep 1, 2010, 2:44 AM
Ramsayfarian is an idiot. There are plenty of Hitmen and Roughneck banners in the Saddledome.

Bigtime
Sep 1, 2010, 2:48 AM
Now now, let's not over-react, he was getting a pretty good dig in.

SubwayRev
Sep 1, 2010, 4:06 AM
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.

Well actually, everybody currently involved in the Dome would be involved in the new arena, so I don't think the Flames would be the only ones not interested in operating the Saddledome.

Calgary simply isn't big enough to operate two full-sized, functioning arenas. Having said that, there could be a possibility of other uses, but I doubt we'll ever see that.

Ramsayfarian
Sep 1, 2010, 12:55 PM
Ramsayfarian is an idiot. There are plenty of Hitmen and Roughneck banners in the Saddledome.

My mistake. I forgot about those ones and I think there's one for 1,000,000 hotdogs sold.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 1, 2010, 1:48 PM
Yeah, as much as it would be nice to have another full sized arena, I would rather put the revenue into a much better main arena. With the dome being pretty iconic however, it would be interesting to run a architecture competition and see what options people come up with for the building before it is torn down. There must be something it can be used for even if it is just removing enough seats to get a fair sized exhibition floor, or mothballing the upper decks to have it replace the corral and installing some good sound baffles to provide a 6-10 thousand person concert venue.

Or maybe some totally new crazy use (unlikely). In the past I thought two would be good, but really you don't want to have a situation like the Pyramid Arena where your facility sits empty for 5 or 6 years. Fortunately Bass Pro Shops is now moving into it, not the most useful use, but unless you need the land (Saddledome) for something else why not.

Calgarian
Sep 1, 2010, 2:04 PM
The Saddledome is a landmark building and is actually pretty unique in it's construction. The new arena will look like the Roundup Centre and will be an embarrassment to the city, sounds about right for Calgary.

YYCguys
Sep 1, 2010, 3:05 PM
Of interesting note, Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto is being renovated into a Loblaws and also as an athletic centre for Ryerson University.

floobie
Sep 1, 2010, 3:44 PM
Question: I'm not a hockey fan, or a sports fan in general.

What is so lacking about the Saddle Dome that it needs to be replaced? I'm no stranger to the place. I've been to a few hockey games, and numerous concerts, and I never found it lacking in any way.

As an "average tax payer" in this situation, who isn't emotionally invested in sports, I'd appreciate it if someone could reassure me that this isn't just some NHL "look at my shiny new car" contest. Does a shiny new stadium ultimately increase event attendance and profits? Or will it attract more entertainment events in general?

I mean no hostility with this comment. I'm really just curious.

mersar
Sep 1, 2010, 3:53 PM
Question: I'm not a hockey fan, or a sports fan in general.

What is so lacking about the Saddle Dome that it needs to be replaced? I'm no stranger to the place. I've been to a few hockey games, and numerous concerts, and I never found it lacking in any way.

The quick answers are for hockey the answer is probably the ability to add more box seats, any new arena would have pretty much the same number of seats, possibly even a bit less. For concerts the issue is that the roof isn't structurally designed in a way to support the load from some of the modern stages that have huge amounts of stuff hanging from the roof.

hulkrogan
Sep 1, 2010, 7:39 PM
As Joe Tax Payer, the benefits of a new arena is that it will make our hockey team more likely to survive the bad years when they hit. Having more boxes will be a huge boost for revenues and will help make the team financially viable even when attendance is down. Every game night you have a lot of media, players, team staff and fans from out of town dumping money into our economy, so having a team is a good thing.

Also, we get skipped for concerts all of the time because of limitations with loading on the Saddledome roof. We get the concerts, people associated with the show dump money into the city as well as people from other areas of the province come in for shows.

craner
Nov 30, 2010, 5:41 AM
Posted this in the "Canadian Stadiums" thread in the Canada section but it is basically Calgary specific so I'll post it here as well in hopes of getting some feedback:

Watching the Grey Cup this weekend and how great Commonwealth looked got me dreaming (again) about a new stadium for Calgary.

It kind of surprises me with all the money in this town that it hasn't happened yet.

Anyway I got thinking how it could get done if we were able to have a rich individual or group willing to pay for stadium construction:
- City donates land near the new arena location on the Stampede grounds.
- Create an "Entertainment district" around the new Stadium and Arena (as is already the plan for the arena to my understanding).
- New football stadium to be state-of-the-art (corporate boxes, replay screens, etc.) with retractable roof. Capacity no more than 40K to maintain intamacy, but able to be expanded for Grey Cup, big concerts, special events, etc.
- Sell McMahon stadium and the adjacent parking for transit oriented development.
- Use the proceeds to upgrade Foothills Athletic Park including a new field and grandstand for the U of C Dinos (ala Hellard feild at Shouldice). This would create a more proportionaly scaled venue for the crowds the Dinos draw.

Anyway, just a few of my thoughts, it's still a work in progress.

Thoughts ?

freeweed
Nov 30, 2010, 6:35 AM
If a football stadium goes up anywhere close to the Saddledome (and I mostly hope that it does), I only ask one thing: no Stamps and Flames games on the same day. The roads would be a disaster, and the LRT couldn't possibly handle it.

Unless the games were deliberately staggered. I don't honestly know how often this could conflict, I think football is mostly in the afternoon but hockey sometimes is too.

Riise
Nov 30, 2010, 3:27 PM
Anyway I got thinking how it could get done if we were able to have a rich individual or group willing to pay for stadium construction:
- City donates land near the new arena location on the Stampede grounds.
- Create an "Entertainment district" around the new Stadium and Arena (as is already the plan for the arena to my understanding).
- New football stadium to be state-of-the-art (corporate boxes, replay screens, etc.) with retractable roof. Capacity no more than 40K to maintain intamacy, but able to be expanded for Grey Cup, big concerts, special events, etc.
- Sell McMahon stadium and the adjacent parking for transit oriented development.
- Use the proceeds to upgrade Foothills Athletic Park including a new field and grandstand for the U of C Dinos (ala Hellard feild at Shouldice). This would create a more proportionaly scaled venue for the crowds the Dinos draw.

Anyway, just a few of my thoughts, it's still a work in progress.

Thoughts ?

I'm not a big fan of stadia clusters or indoor stadiums. With the former, you could end up having lots of space dedicated to venues that don't get used all that often. While the arena might be well used, the stadium could very well be the opposite. In regards to the retractable roof, outdoor sports should be played outdoors. With our climates the stands should be covered but retractable roofs and movable pitches are shite.

I think Calgary's best chance for a new stadium would be with a Canadian bid for the World Cup Finals. As we wouldn't be holding the semi's or finals of that tournament, the capacity needed for the WCF would be close to what the Stamps would require. Any additional capacity for the WCF could be provided through a few rows of temporary pitch-side seating, you'd get intimacy for the footy and adaptability for football.

CorporateWhore
Nov 30, 2010, 4:24 PM
I wonder if there's a way to build a stadium that also functions as a good convention center, since it seems like we need one of those as well. It might be a "jack of all trades, master of none" type of situation, but a multi-purpose building that takes advantage of all the floor space would do a lot to diminish any dead days.

kw5150
Nov 30, 2010, 4:37 PM
Whatever happens, I hope it is not just big dead, empty parking lots when there are no games. Areas near stadiums have been known to become derilect in some cites.

Innersoul1
Nov 30, 2010, 4:40 PM
Wow! Me disagreeing with Riise. I wouldn't mind a cluster. The truth is that we are running out of suitable locations to make a cluster happen. My question is with regard to the Stampede site is if there is actually enough room to build a modern stadium. We would need more than just the CT barns to make it happen. Likely part of the Railtown site as well. Then comes the issue of sound. If we are to have any sort of new football/soccer stadium I would suggest that it be covered soley to skirt around the noise bylaws we have in this city. While i tend to agree with Riise that outdoor events should stay outdoors and that the key is to have the spectators covered, I wouldn't be opposed to a retractable roof. Although I would think that it might be cost prohibative.

Given that the UofC owns McMahon stadium i wouldn't forsee them tearing it down any time soon.

Innersoul1
Nov 30, 2010, 4:44 PM
I wonder if there's a way to build a stadium that also functions as a good convention center, since it seems like we need one of those as well. It might be a "jack of all trades, master of none" type of situation, but a multi-purpose building that takes advantage of all the floor space would do a lot to diminish any dead days.

Why not a stadium with a proper convention/multi-use centre attached to it.
The example at Qwest and Safeco field in Seattle isn't the perfect example but you get the idea.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/2560292.jpg

MalcolmTucker
Nov 30, 2010, 5:12 PM
The cost of enclosing such a huge space without columns so such a height to work for football I think would be rather crazy. Plus, how many conventions need that much space (field plus first bowl of seats). You also would be limiting your convention days on valuable weekends reducing the number of days you can use to pay off the stadium. You would have to reserve potentially up to the division finals each and every year.

I would guess that it would make much more financial sense to build a dedicated right sized convention centre, and build or rebuild a separate football stadium (or even stacked on top the convention hall).

freeweed
Nov 30, 2010, 5:13 PM
In regards to the retractable roof, outdoor sports should be played outdoors.

Just curious as to your thoughts on hockey. It is after all primarily an outdoor sport originally.

polishavenger
Nov 30, 2010, 5:55 PM
In an ideal world with the ideal piece of property (perhaps the area around McMahon) this is what I would like to see:

On one end of the property, have the hockey stadium, and on the other end the football stadium. Extending from one stadium to the next would be a long, wide pedestrian mall, flanked on either side by 4 - 6 storey developments, a mix of athletic facilities, hotels, retail, and office. Each stadium would be standing on top of a main podium of retail and convention space which ties into the stadium itself. All parking of course would be underground. And to top all of this off, have high rise/midrise residential on the permimeter of the property.

suburb
Nov 30, 2010, 6:34 PM
Plus, how many conventions need that much space (field plus first bowl of seats).

Many convention centres require that type of space. Calgary has started losing several - the canadian cardiovascular congress comes to mind. It came to town years ago and said never again till we get larger facilities. Now they only go to the big three cities. An event that Calgary squeaked in was when the Aga Khan visited in 2008. They would have taken double the RoundUp centre if it existed - and in fact converted a 300,000 sf warehouse to complement the limitations of what Calgary has to make it happen. (To put in perspective, in Toronto they took the Skydome, Direct Energy Centre and the Metro Toronto Convention Centre all together). In 2005, they figured Calgary's facilities weren't enough and all went to Vancouver where their convention centre plus all of of the PNE was used.

Many traditional conventions, and I go back to the cardiovascular congress and other medicine related conventions as touchstones, have the actual convention and a huge exhibition that goes along with it. So you have large plenary sessions and breakout sessions, and then in the really big hall you have the exhibition going on. Calgary can never get things like the Heart Rhythm Society meeting if we don't shape up - even though the next president of the international society is from Calgary, we don't have facilities so the meetings will send everyone to the US anyway.

Los Angeles is another example I've used - though in that case it is the arena and the convention centre. In the picture below, you can see that the scale is quite huge. We wouldn't need that much - but perhaps the left half.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Los_Angeles_Convention_Center.png

suburb
Nov 30, 2010, 6:38 PM
In an ideal world with the ideal piece of property (perhaps the area around McMahon) this is what I would like to see:

On one end of the property, have the hockey stadium, and on the other end the football stadium. Extending from one stadium to the next would be a long, wide pedestrian mall, flanked on either side by 4 - 6 storey developments, a mix of athletic facilities, hotels, retail, and office. Each stadium would be standing on top of a main podium of retail and convention space which ties into the stadium itself. All parking of course would be underground. And to top all of this off, have high rise/midrise residential on the permimeter of the property.

I like it - especially the underground parking :)

I think the university would actually go for it if it had the right partners. Certainly that LRT station could be upgraded at the same time also.

craner
Nov 30, 2010, 8:04 PM
I'm not a big fan of stadia clusters or indoor stadiums. With the former, you could end up having lots of space dedicated to venues that don't get used all that often. While the arena might be well used, the stadium could very well be the opposite. In regards to the retractable roof, outdoor sports should be played outdoors. With our climates the stands should be covered but retractable roofs and movable pitches are shite.


If it came down to a choice between a covered or outdoor stadium I would definitely choose outdoor. I just think a retractable roof would allow for a lot more flexibility in terms of events that could be held. And, I have to admit it would have been nice to be indoors for the CFL West Final this year, I must be getting soft. I wish the CFL would start their season a month earlier on June 1st and have the Grey Cup at the end of October - but that is a whole other story.

craner
Nov 30, 2010, 8:08 PM
In an ideal world with the ideal piece of property (perhaps the area around McMahon) this is what I would like to see:

On one end of the property, have the hockey stadium, and on the other end the football stadium. Extending from one stadium to the next would be a long, wide pedestrian mall, flanked on either side by 4 - 6 storey developments, a mix of athletic facilities, hotels, retail, and office. Each stadium would be standing on top of a main podium of retail and convention space which ties into the stadium itself. All parking of course would be underground. And to top all of this off, have high rise/midrise residential on the permimeter of the property.

:previous: I like this idea as well. :tup:
I like the district in Phoenix (Glendale) around the Football Stadium and Hockey Arena. Why not cater to a and take advantage of a built in crowd at every game (resturants, pubs, shopping, etc.).

Riise
Nov 30, 2010, 10:31 PM
Just curious as to your thoughts on hockey. It is after all primarily an outdoor sport originally.

I consider hockey to be an indoor sport. Unlike the various kinds of football and athletics, it is most often played indoors at the amateur, professional, and even recreation level. There isn't the same kind of affection for the outdoor environment and its elements (e.g. smell of the grass and sunshine).



In an ideal world with the ideal piece of property (perhaps the area around McMahon) this is what I would like to see:

On one end of the property, have the hockey stadium, and on the other end the football stadium.

Although I don't like clusters, I like how you use the venues as opposing anchors.

In this ideal world, I think we could also throw in an LRT spur-loop off of the 201. Something like: Lion's Park --> South Anchor --> North Anchor --> Banff Trail --> City Centre. Since this is quite fantastical, alternatively it could be be a spur branch that leads to the University Central station that was originally planned for the U.

Innersoul1
Dec 1, 2010, 12:06 AM
I have always been a HUGE fan of the set-up at the Staples Centre. It's a model for multi-use facilities. Would love something like that. Unfortunately, i don't see it happening anytime soon. The Stampede has it's focus elsewhere and with money being an issue with the new arena I don't thinkt hat it is on the radar. PLUS any partnership between the Flames and the Stampede would have Stampitechture written all over it! :yuck:

speedog
Dec 1, 2010, 3:03 AM
Why not Firestone Park in Calgary? Good sized area with next door LRT access and good road infrastructure close by (Barlow, Memorial and Deerfoot).

fusili
Dec 1, 2010, 3:19 AM
Why not Firestone Park in Calgary? Good sized area with next door LRT access and good road infrastructure close by (Barlow, Memorial and Deerfoot).

Sanitary sewer is a nightmare. They have to connect to a trunk line across Deerfoot.

Me&You
Dec 1, 2010, 1:51 PM
Why not Firestone Park in Calgary? Good sized area with next door LRT access and good road infrastructure close by (Barlow, Memorial and Deerfoot).

I have never liked the idea of a new Flames rink at Firestone Park. Just the thought of going there for a hockey game seems to take a lot away for me...

Where would I go for dinner before or a couple beers after? Don't tell me it would turn into some artificial "entertainment district" (sound like Disneyland)... no matter what was built in this "district" it could never match the number of choices currently within a 10min walk from the 'dome... hundreds of restaurants, dozens of bars, two Casinos, thousands of residents... Firepark :yuck:

Bigtime
Dec 1, 2010, 2:33 PM
I have never liked the idea of a new Flames rink at Firestone Park. Just the thought of going there for a hockey game seems to take a lot away for me...

Where would I go for dinner before or a couple beers after? Don't tell me it would turn into some artificial "entertainment district" (sound like Disneyland)... no matter what was built in this "district" it could never match the number of choices currently within a 10min walk from the 'dome... hundreds of restaurants, dozens of bars, two Casinos, thousands of residents... Firepark :yuck:

Quoted for motherfuckin' truth.


Yes I had to be that blunt about it. :cool:

MikieCGY
Dec 11, 2010, 1:56 AM
The rate the flames are at winning games.. it'll take that much more to get a new Arena.. lol alast it would be nice.. if Another arena is built.. it would definitely be staying on stampede grounds.. I don't see that thing ever being moved ..

freeweed
Dec 13, 2010, 12:30 AM
I believe it's pretty much a done deal that the new arena is to be built kiddie-corner from Bigtime err I mean Arriva. Immediately east of the Stampede Casino.

Mind you, depending on what the feds do for Quebec City, who knows what's gonna happen. They pretty much need to decide and start construction prep next year no matter what, unless the Saddledome suddenly gets a new lease on life.

Barnes
Mar 2, 2011, 11:07 PM
Rob Kerr will be speaking with Ken King regarding the new building (hopefully) tomorrow at 7:00pm on CFAC Rogers Sportsnet Radio the Fan 960 (kHz) AM.

It is a pre-recorded interview entitled: Special Investigative Report: Building and Funding Arenas

Calgarian
Mar 7, 2011, 10:13 PM
^Did anyone listen to this?

nick.flood
Mar 7, 2011, 10:28 PM
delete

Calgarian
Mar 8, 2011, 4:31 PM
Thanks for the link, I think Kerr dragged it on for too long, and they said the same thing quite a few times, but still a very interesting discussion. I hope some concrete plans get announced this summer, this should be a huge project for the city, maybe not as significant as the one in Edmonton, but still pretty important.

Innersoul1
Mar 9, 2011, 6:16 PM
Pretty interesting, its good to know that the Organzization has been actively touring arena's throughout the league learning about successes and failures. Clearly we won't be getting anything as large as the Bell Centre. That is a totally EPIC arena.

suburb
Mar 9, 2011, 6:45 PM
Pretty interesting, its good to know that the Organzization has been actively touring arena's throughout the league learning about successes and failures. Clearly we won't be getting anything as large as the Bell Centre. That is a totally EPIC arena.

Is the bell centre really that much larger? The saddledome's peak capacity over the years was about 21,000 seats. At the current 19+ seats, how many of the 41 homes games are not sell-outs? Are you meaning the bell centre large in a different fashion than capacity (does it have a 500X200 ice surface or something)?

MalcolmTucker
Mar 9, 2011, 8:19 PM
The Bell Centre keeps going up and up. I believe the game I went to there was in the fifth tier set of seats - upper upper nose bleeds. Except for selling beer more cheap seats provides little incentive.

MonctonGoldenFlames
Mar 9, 2011, 8:30 PM
Except for selling beer more cheap seats provides little incentive.

more cheap seats allow more people and families to attend games, that otherwise would not be able to afford it.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 9, 2011, 8:35 PM
more cheap seats allow more people and families to attend games, that otherwise would not be able to afford it.

If public money goes directly to the building cost there should be some allowance but even then the marginal cost of providing those extra seats can be very high depending on the design. I doubt capacity will end up north of 19,500 which is pretty generous by modern arena standards already.

kw5150
Mar 9, 2011, 9:12 PM
I hope they manage to incorporate this this more effectively into the neighborhood. Yes, I have said it before, the stampede area has SO much potential to become some kind of new urban strip that is active at ALL times not just during games, stampede and a couple of events here and there. If it ends up being similar to what is there now, it will be a colossal waste of valuable city land and a dead space for zombies to roam.

You Need A Thneed
Mar 9, 2011, 9:19 PM
I hope they manage to incorporate this this more effectively into the neighborhood. Yes, I have said it before, the stampede area has SO much potential to become some kind of new urban strip that is active at ALL times not just during games, stampede and a couple of events here and there. If it ends up being similar to what is there now, it will be a colossal waste of valuable city land and a dead space for zombies to roam.

Incorporating it is the plans.

suburb
Mar 9, 2011, 11:42 PM
The Bell Centre keeps going up and up. I believe the game I went to there was in the fifth tier set of seats - upper upper nose bleeds. Except for selling beer more cheap seats provides little incentive.

So that doesn't suggest larger given the number of seats are similar to other arenas including ours. What it does speak to is design - so it is certainly not something unachievable for Calgary.

kw5150
Mar 10, 2011, 7:33 AM
Incorporating it is the plans.

In the "Calgary Way" or for real?

Is it San Diego that has a good example? And one in Europe? That would make us world class if it compared to the ones I am thinking about. That would change the game for Calgary. No pun intended.....

You Need A Thneed
Mar 10, 2011, 3:38 PM
Ken King has said that the Flames want to have restaurants and such in the arena, but accessiblle from the street.

kw5150
Mar 10, 2011, 5:41 PM
Ken King has said that the Flames want to have restaurants and such in the arena, but accessiblle from the street.

great! That is good news. In its current state it is dead space down there. Dead, prime, sunny, space.

Calgarian
Mar 10, 2011, 5:49 PM
Ken King has said that the Flames want to have restaurants and such in the arena, but accessiblle from the street.

That would be good. They should have a decent pub with a decent amount of seats too. Duttons is basically impossible to get a table in on game day.

monocle
Mar 10, 2011, 5:53 PM
That would be good. They should have a decent pub with a decent amount of seats too. Duttons is basically impossible to get a table in on game day.

It would be great to extend 17th into the grounds, ala Stephen avenue.

polishavenger
Mar 10, 2011, 5:54 PM
Any stadium should be a hub of activity with a wide variety of uses. If the flames dont build a building that sits on top of a retail/entertainment/recreational complex and be ringed by residential towers, they are missing out on a great economic opportunity and the city is losing out on a phenomenal chance to create a very vibrant area.

kw5150
Mar 10, 2011, 6:03 PM
It would be great to extend 17th into the grounds, ala Stephen avenue.

Definately, there has been talk on this forum before about that. re-establish that broken connection.

You Need A Thneed
Mar 10, 2011, 6:28 PM
Definately, there has been talk on this forum before about that. re-establish that broken connection.

It's been shown on the Stampede's plans for the grounds as well (plans are probably out of date now). However, the connection won't do the New Arena very much good, as I'm guessing that the arena will be up by 11th or 12th Ave on 4th Street SE.

Innersoul1
Mar 10, 2011, 6:50 PM
Is the bell centre really that much larger? The saddledome's peak capacity over the years was about 21,000 seats. At the current 19+ seats, how many of the 41 homes games are not sell-outs? Are you meaning the bell centre large in a different fashion than capacity (does it have a 500X200 ice surface or something)?

The Bell Centre is probably one of my favourite arenas in the leagure from an interior perspective. It has the largest capacity in the league at just over 21,200 seats, as compared to Calgary's 19,300. You are right the 1900 seats difference isn't staggering but it is significant. In that Fan 960 interview King stated that they don't want to go that large.

Malcolm is correct in stating that it goes up and up. There is a 500 level, however, the 500 level is essentially the equivalent to our 300 level. The Bell Centre is actually a 3 level stadium. The lower red seats are the 100 level, the 200 level is the Dejardin Club (box seats and then about 10 rows of executive seats where all the food and drink is inclusive in the ticket price). The 300/400 levels come next, however, the 400 level's top rows are considered the 500 level.

The nice thing about the 400 level is that it has its own dedicated concourse. with food and beverage stands and HUGE washrooms. My favourite part about the 300-500 level is it's efficiency. It is serviced by escalators so it literally takes 3 minutes to exit the building even if you are on the top level. The Desjadin club is awesome because it gives the truly executive/corporate feel in that it has an isolated concourse from the rest of the arena.

The Bell centre is just really well designed. Combined with the amenities of the Consol energy arena and you would have a winner for sure!

I am curious about a practice facility. It is alluded to by Ken King in the interview but i am wondering if the arena would have a formal practice facility. Or if the flames might build an off-site practice facility

monocle
Mar 10, 2011, 7:03 PM
Definately, there has been talk on this forum before about that. re-establish that broken connection.

Shit. I can't believe I didn't come here sooner. I probably heard of SSP in '05, but instead spent time at CP.

If I say or ask anything idiotic, please let me have it... I am here to learn.

So, how about that new _______ in Edminton? :banana:

freeweed
Mar 10, 2011, 7:42 PM
Shit. I can't believe I didn't come here sooner. I probably heard of SSP in '05, but instead spent time at CP.

If I say or ask anything idiotic, please let me have it... I am here to learn.


Welcome welcome. There's probably just a tad higher level of discourse here than CP. :D

Don't be afraid to ask "idiotic" questions, or bring up old discussion topics. We haven't actually had much discussion on the new arena in a long while now - the Flames seem to have stalled out in terms of public information, and there's some lingering unhappiness w.r.t. the Stampede. So a lot of stuff is potentially up in the air right now.

mersar
Mar 10, 2011, 7:51 PM
I am curious about a practice facility. It is alluded to by Ken King in the interview but i am wondering if the arena would have a formal practice facility. Or if the flames might build an off-site practice facility

Rumors I've heard are an on-site facility, essentially they want to tack a smaller arena/multiuse area about the same size as the new international rink at COP on to the facility as well in some way.

kw5150
Mar 10, 2011, 9:59 PM
It's been shown on the Stampede's plans for the grounds as well (plans are probably out of date now). However, the connection won't do the New Arena very much good, as I'm guessing that the arena will be up by 11th or 12th Ave on 4th Street SE.

Yes, and the Stampede has installed SUPER wide sidewalks along 12 ave SE. Hopefully that continues.

suburb
Mar 10, 2011, 10:00 PM
The Bell Centre is probably one of my favourite arenas in the leagure from an interior perspective. It has the largest capacity in the league at just over 21,200 seats, as compared to Calgary's 19,300. You are right the 1900 seats difference isn't staggering but it is significant. In that Fan 960 interview King stated that they don't want to go that large.

That's too bad in my books. More seats could result in some that were cheaper, increasing accessibility for the average folks. The Saddledome had a capacity of 20,016 during the Olympics, while some things have been reconfigured such that it is now 19,289.

freeweed
Mar 11, 2011, 1:33 AM
That's too bad in my books. More seats could result in some that were cheaper, increasing accessibility for the average folks. The Saddledome had a capacity of 20,016 during the Olympics, while some things have been reconfigured such that it is now 19,289.

Sadly, those "cheap" seats are generally money losers these days. The cost to build another 2000 seats in a modern arena is more than the ticket revenue they'd make back over the life of an arena. Except in markets where they can charge obscene amounts for said tickets (Toronto, Montreal).

Keep in mind that Calgary didn't have the upper decks open for Flames games as recently as 7 years ago.

Hockey rinks are getting smaller, not larger. Sucks for the "average folks", but that's how the business is going. Then again, you can still get Flames tickets for $25 a seat. That's pretty cheap compared to most other forms of live entertainment. People pay 3-4x that much for a concert or live theatre show, easy.

And for the "what about the families" crowd... that's why we have a WHL team. Damned cheap and good entertainment. And the kids don't care either way.

Mazrim
Mar 11, 2011, 9:41 PM
Don't be afraid to ask "idiotic" questions, or bring up old discussion topics.

Is there going to be a cupcake stand at the new arena? What company? This is important.

monocle
Mar 11, 2011, 9:48 PM
Is there going to be a cupcake stand at the new arena? What company? This is important.

Not to mention;
Counterfeit jersey detectors at the doors.
Legitimate Jersey scanners for STH discounts.
Bottom-fill beer fillers.

Bigtime
Mar 11, 2011, 9:58 PM
Bottom-fill beer fillers.

This this this! :cheers:

fusili
Mar 11, 2011, 10:10 PM
This this this! :cheers:

I have been to a bar where each table has its own individual beer tap. That is correct. It's own individual beer tap. Whatever your pour is calculated by a computer, displayed on a screen in the bar and you are charged for the total amount when you settle up at the end of the night. You can have drinking contests between tables and the amounts will be digitally recorded. Pure, pure awesome.

Bigtime
Mar 11, 2011, 10:17 PM
Where is this magical place?

Calgarian
Mar 11, 2011, 10:19 PM
Where is this magical place?

Yes, do tell.

fusili
Mar 11, 2011, 10:43 PM
Where is this magical place?

Spain. The country of magic and loose liquor regulations.

Specifically, the Sala Apolo in the Poble Sec district of Barcelona. Streetview here (http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=barcelona&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Barcelona,+Province+of+Barcelona,+Catalonia,+Spain&gl=ca&ll=41.373882,2.169682&spn=0,0.00685&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.374191,2.169194&panoid=9PDCedxDDCh96UkLI9aLlg&cbp=12,79.86,,0,2.18) (if you zoom in you can see the taps on the tables.

polishavenger
Mar 11, 2011, 10:47 PM
From what I've heard the key to stadium economics is getting several floors of boxes, and as big a lower bowl as possible, both of which are lacking at the Saddledome. Cheap seats as mentioned have gone the way of the dodo in cities where people actually care about hockey, but if you want its sometimes cheaper to fly to phoenix for a flames game than go to one in Calgary.

monocle
Mar 12, 2011, 1:08 AM
From what I've heard the key to stadium economics is getting several floors of boxes, and as big a lower bowl as possible, both of which are lacking at the Saddledome. Cheap seats as mentioned have gone the way of the dodo in cities where people actually care about hockey, but if you want its sometimes cheaper to fly to phoenix for a flames game than go to one in Calgary.

For how long, though?

Maybe Winnipeg will still be cheaper though, considering the town's unwillingness to overpay.
(I say this being engaged to a Winnipeger.)

jeffwhit
Mar 12, 2011, 5:46 AM
I stayed at a Hotel in Chiba City Japan (AKA Japamilton) that had a 2000y (20 dollars-ish) all you can drink self serve bar on the top floor with one of these:

YhXP1wgkEhk

GoflamesGo
Mar 23, 2011, 3:29 AM
A friend of mine and I were talking about the future of the saddledome, and the eventual new arena, and I thought about a possible use for the dome. Maybe an engineer could shed some light as to the feasability of it but anyway here it goes.

Would it be possible to transform the saddledome into a footbal stadium. Obviously the field would take more space than the rink, so you'd lose maybe the first 10-15 rows. Then you could remove the roof, and then expand upwards another level of seating so the total seating is closer to 35000. Under the field you could house the workout facilities, food and beer storage, maybe some bathrooms. It would allow for both hockey, and football stadiums to be close to eachother.

Is this possible?

Koolfire
Mar 23, 2011, 4:09 AM
A friend of mine and I were talking about the future of the saddledome, and the eventual new arena, and I thought about a possible use for the dome. Maybe an engineer could shed some light as to the feasability of it but anyway here it goes.

Would it be possible to transform the saddledome into a footbal stadium. Obviously the field would take more space than the rink, so you'd lose maybe the first 10-15 rows. Then you could remove the roof, and then expand upwards another level of seating so the total seating is closer to 35000. Under the field you could house the workout facilities, food and beer storage, maybe some bathrooms. It would allow for both hockey, and football stadiums to be close to eachother.

Is this possible?


My guess would be it's possible by having the football field on a floating floor that can be moved. Arizona stadium can have the playing field moved outside for sunshine and then moved back for games.

But the problem is that McMahon has a capacity of over 35,000 but the Saddledome is under 20,000. I just don't see the the viewing angles working out for a facility to reach 35,000 for a football game.

craner
Mar 23, 2011, 4:22 AM
A friend of mine and I were talking about the future of the saddledome, and the eventual new arena, and I thought about a possible use for the dome. Maybe an engineer could shed some light as to the feasability of it but anyway here it goes.

Would it be possible to transform the saddledome into a footbal stadium. Obviously the field would take more space than the rink, so you'd lose maybe the first 10-15 rows. Then you could remove the roof, and then expand upwards another level of seating so the total seating is closer to 35000. Under the field you could house the workout facilities, food and beer storage, maybe some bathrooms. It would allow for both hockey, and football stadiums to be close to eachother.

Is this possible?

Anything is possible but maybe not worth the effort and expense to try and convert it to a football stadium.
A football field is more than twice as wide as the ice surface - think of the heritage classic. A hockey rink is 85 feet (30 yds) wide I belive and a CFL feild is 65 yds plus sideline area.
I like the idea of the two facilities being close together though and integrated into the "Entertainment District" at Stampede Park. I also applaud your brainstorming on what to do with the Saddledome when the new arena gets built.
As for the football stadium - maybe converting the Stampede grandstand should be looked into (as mentoned before in this thread).
:cheers:

nick.flood
Mar 23, 2011, 4:53 AM
delete

GoflamesGo
Mar 23, 2011, 6:54 AM
^ Looking at that picture just kiled my idea! haha

Craner, I think the grand stand would be a great place for a new stadium. People in ramsey might get too much noise tho?

YYCguys
Mar 23, 2011, 1:20 PM
I still think it should be reworked into multiple storeys of hotel rooms with balconies surrounding a water park.

:tup: Agreed! :tup:

polishavenger
Mar 23, 2011, 3:25 PM
^ Looking at that picture just kiled my idea! haha

Craner, I think the grand stand would be a great place for a new stadium. People in ramsey might get too much noise tho?

People in Ramsay dont have the right to complain about noise seeing as how they have chosen to live next to an entertainment park.

freeweed
Mar 23, 2011, 4:29 PM
People in Ramsay dont have the right to complain about noise seeing as how they have chosen to live next to an entertainment park.

Plus they have to deal with ramsayfarian's thumping Bob Marley at all hours of the night.

Calgarian
Mar 23, 2011, 5:49 PM
Why can't they just keep the Saddledome? They kept the Corral though it barely gets used. Demo the Corral and keep the Saddledome!

Riise
Mar 25, 2011, 6:30 PM
In the past, I've brought up the idea of introducing terraces or sections for standing room only (SRO) as way to both off-set the loss of capacity caused by having more boxes and boost affordability. Currently in England, the Football Supporters Federation is in the midst of a campaign to reintroduce safe standing areas in the top two flights of English football. In an attempt to show how SRO is not intrinsically unsafe, they have provided examples of safe standing areas that have been implemented quite successfully in recently built stadia. Most of the stadiums featured in their design guide were from Germany, however, there was also an American example; Cowboys Stadium.

The Cowboys offer Party Passes for $29 that allows fans access to the Party Decks, which are SRO and spread across three levels behind each end-zone. Apparently, they have been quite well received. In fact, they were a victim of their own success and had some initials problems as they oversold the passes. This provides an example of how terraces are not intrinsically unsafe but rather only unsafe went implemented incorrectly. I think the success SRO has found in Dallas should push the Flames to seriously study and consider the potential role terraces could have in their new arena.



Party Passes
The Cowboys sell Party Pass tickets to select Cowboys games and other major events. The Party Pass tickets are valid for stadium admission and access to designated standing room areas. Guests with Party Pass tickets may not occupy a stadium seat or portable folding chair. Guests with Party Pass tickets may watch the game from open areas or platforms. Standing is not permitted in entryways, aisles, areas of seating sections or in wheelchair and companion platform seating areas.

Source: Stadium.DallasCowboys.com (http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/events/eventTicketInformation.cfm)




$29 Ticket Provides New Fan Experience

31 July 2009

SAN ANTONIO - There's the infield at the Kentucky Derby or Texas Motor Speedway, the grounds passes at Wimbledon or the Pavilion at the Byron Nelson Championship in Irving, Texas.

Now comes a unique NFL fan experience for those without a regular seat: "The Party Pass" at Cowboys Stadium, a new concept giving fans access to six party decks and over 180,000 square feet of space overlooking the field, as well as more than seven acres of outdoor plaza space.

Complete Article (http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/news.cfm?id=D37DF723-B686-768B-6FAF635AAFD24CF8)




Stand And Deliver

23 March 2011
Soccernet.com
Dale Johnson

The issue of standing areas at football grounds in England has been an emotive issue ever since the Hillsborough disaster of 1989, which led to all-seater stadia.

All four professional divisions in England were initially to remove terraces, a decision that was eventually revised with clubs in the third and fourth tiers no longer required to make changes due to the cost of updating grounds that were largely outdated and not designed for seating. Just the Premier League and the Championship require all-seater arenas.

A common misconception with the Taylor Report is that it advised the banning of standing areas. That is a fallacy. The report suggested a move to all-seater stadia but did not blame standing areas for the Hillsborough disaster - more so overcrowding, poor stadium design and errors in policing. But standing is perceived as the evil, hence "safe standing" is the term used when discussing its return.

Standing as it was in the 1980s could never return. You only have to look at the images of crowds during that period to see that terraces were dangerously overcrowded. Fans were packed in with little thought for safety or comfort. Not just football but society in general is very different today, with an obsession over health and safety. This one reason alone would prevent another Hillsborough.

Complete Article (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story/_/id/897809/dale-johnson:-standing-at-football-grounds?cc=5901)

GoflamesGo
Mar 26, 2011, 1:10 AM
^ I love the SRO idea. I'm all for it. Could you imagine an extra 5000 people in that sort of setting during playoffs? It would probably not work year round, but woudl be a huge success come post season.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 27, 2011, 12:08 AM
Anything is possible but maybe not worth the effort and expense to try and convert it to a football stadium.
A football field is more than twice as wide as the ice surface - think of the heritage classic. A hockey rink is 85 feet (30 yds) wide I belive and a CFL feild is 65 yds plus sideline area.
I like the idea of the two facilities being close together though and integrated into the "Entertainment District" at Stampede Park. I also applaud your brainstorming on what to do with the Saddledome when the new arena gets built.
As for the football stadium - maybe converting the Stampede grandstand should be looked into (as mentoned before in this thread).
:cheers:

Especially since the grand stand is now a stampede only facility, it would make for an interesting rodeo facility for sure - the sight lines for chucks would be hurt but I'm sure could make it workable, if not optimal.

yo-youyi
Apr 8, 2011, 7:10 PM
this might be relevant to the Flames...

Stelmach opens arena funding door slightly

http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg/LocalNews/story.aspx?ID=1398939

...if the province gives Edmonton $100M for their arena, expect Calgary to get the same.

freeweed
Apr 8, 2011, 7:39 PM
...if the province gives Edmonton $100M for their arena, expect Calgary to get the same.

Yeah, and fortunately I don't think we're stupid enough to spend $450 million on a rink (seriously, 2 of the smallest NHL cities in NA want to build the 2 most expensive rinks, why??). So we should have no problem getting this thing built with that kind of government infusion.

lubicon
Apr 8, 2011, 9:00 PM
Yeah, and fortunately I don't think we're stupid enough to spend $450 million on a rink (seriously, 2 of the smallest NHL cities in NA want to build the 2 most expensive rinks, why??). So we should have no problem getting this thing built with that kind of government infusion.

Freeweed, I understand your point BUT...I'm guessing one of the biggest factors contributing to the big price tag for Edmonton and Quebec City is the fact that they ARE the newest buildings and thus will almost always be the most expensive. It's almost a fact of life.

You bring up an interesting point though. It would be neat to see a list of current NHL arenas in order of age with their construction cost included. Just to see what (if any) correlation there is between age and construction cost. Of course arena's have evolved over time and have become more elaborate as well.

freeweed
Apr 8, 2011, 9:23 PM
Freeweed, I understand your point BUT...I'm guessing one of the biggest factors contributing to the big price tag for Edmonton and Quebec City is the fact that they ARE the newest buildings and thus will almost always be the most expensive. It's almost a fact of life.

You bring up an interesting point though. It would be neat to see a list of current NHL arenas in order of age with their construction cost included. Just to see what (if any) correlation there is between age and construction cost. Of course arena's have evolved over time and have become more elaborate as well.

I'm probably not being clear - most expensive *taking inflation into account*. I think the next most expensive is almost $100 million less. There's no way things have gotten that expensive in less than 10 years, especially considering we're still in the tail end of a recession.

There's also the fact that other places have built arenas in very recent memory for substantially less. Pittsburgh's was just over $300 million and it just opened this season. I find it very, very hard to believe nearly 50% inflation since 2008.

The current thinking is that a modern NHL arena should be in the $300-375 million range, depending on the size of the market and how fancy you want to go. No way in hell should the 2 smallest markets (I'm including QC's plans here) require the 2 most expensive rinks. It makes no sense at all.

UofC.engineer
Apr 8, 2011, 9:41 PM
Pittsburgh is a post industrial city rusting away. You can buy a house for the price of a VCR. Of course an arena is going to cost less when you factor in labor and material costs...it's basic economics.

People don't realize it but professional sports teams are very important to cities from an economical perspective. Think about how many millionaires are employed by these clubs? They spend all those dollars in the city.

Freeweed...Ottawa is now smaller than Calgary:cheers:

And Buffalo isn't that big either it's CSA is 1.2 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo,_New_York

MichaelS
Apr 8, 2011, 10:18 PM
Pittsburgh is a post industrial city rusting away. You can buy a house for the price of a VCR. Of course an arena is going to cost less when you factor in labor and material costs...it's basic economics.

People don't realize it but professional sports teams are very important to cities from an economical perspective. Think about how many millionaires are employed by these clubs? They spend all those dollars in the city.
Freeweed...Ottawa is now smaller than Calgary:cheers:

And Buffalo isn't that big either it's CSA is 1.2 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo,_New_York

Do they? How many of them have second homes somewhere (perhaps not even in Canada) that they live at during the off-season, and spend most of their money there?

Riise
Apr 8, 2011, 10:26 PM
People don't realize it but professional sports teams are very important to cities from an economical perspective.

What the studies that examine the financial impact of new arenas/professional sports clubs on local spending don't focus on is whether or not this money is additional spending or money that would simply be spent in other parts of the city/region on other forms of entertainment or discretionary purchases. Could it be a case of the Walmart effect?

MalcolmTucker
Apr 8, 2011, 10:31 PM
There is also the promotional value of having a team representing your city to a continental audience, even if somewhat limited on tv, and spill over to newspapers and radio in nhl markets.

I would say that is probably worth a couple million a year, maybe as high as 5, but really hard to measure.

If Calgary can get a new stadia for only associated infrastructure costs and perhaps a free land lease it would truely be a steal of a deal for the city.

Calgarian
Apr 8, 2011, 10:50 PM
I'm with freeweed, Consol Energy Center cost $321 million US, how is an arena in Edmonton going to cost $129 million more? Consol is a state of the art building.

fusili
Apr 8, 2011, 10:54 PM
What the studies that examine the financial impact of new arenas/professional sports clubs on local spending don't focus on is whether or not this money is additional spending or money that would simply be spent in other parts of the city/region on other forms of entertainment or discretionary purchases. Could it be a case of the Walmart effect?

New arenas rarely contribute more to a local economy than would spending in almost anything else. It is usually just something that Sports franchises say so they can get government funding.

Riise
Apr 8, 2011, 10:59 PM
There is also the promotional value of having a team representing your city to a continental audience, even if somewhat limited on tv, and spill over to newspapers and radio in nhl markets.

I would say that is probably worth a couple million a year, maybe as high as 5, but really hard to measure.

If Calgary can get a new stadia for only associated infrastructure costs and perhaps a free land lease it would truely be a steal of a deal for the city.

Although I'm against using public funds to construct the arena, I think doing what you mentioned is fair game. If the city was able to recuperate those costs through a community revitalization/stadium property-tax surcharge on establishments that spring up around the facility, that would be brilliant!

Ramsayfarian
Apr 8, 2011, 11:04 PM
New arenas rarely contribute more to a local economy than would spending in almost anything else. It is usually just something that Sports franchises say so they can get government funding.

I think there's been several studies done in the states that found that funding arenas/stadiums/ball parks is money wasted.

I'm against any public money spent on a new arena for the simple fact that it only benefits a small percentage of the population. I"d rather see the money go towards education or a library.

What doesn't the internets have?
http://books.google.ca/books?id=1cklAwAVAgkC&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=studies+on+tax+money+on+sport&source=bl&ots=0mtvreSrYA&sig=ndI1StAU7rmYVQ7SXFCfySfpuAI&hl=en&ei=vJWfTaKQJ6qP0QGl9cWDBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bassic Lab
Apr 9, 2011, 12:52 AM
I think there's been several studies done in the states that found that funding arenas/stadiums/ball parks is money wasted.

I'm against any public money spent on a new arena for the simple fact that it only benefits a small percentage of the population. I"d rather see the money go towards education or a library.

What doesn't the internets have?
http://books.google.ca/books?id=1cklAwAVAgkC&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=studies+on+tax+money+on+sport&source=bl&ots=0mtvreSrYA&sig=ndI1StAU7rmYVQ7SXFCfySfpuAI&hl=en&ei=vJWfTaKQJ6qP0QGl9cWDBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

I wouldn't mind public construction and ownership of sports venues, particularly the kind of multi-purpose venues hockey and basketball require, if the theory matched the reality. That is if they were long term assets, monuments to a society, and a public good. Instead they have simply become a means to subsidize billionaires' vanity projects for twenty years until they demand a new one. Too many cities build them so as to make a statement that they're in the big leagues and then find that, instead of making an investment, they have just opened themselves up for extortion because the leagues have constrained supply so that ever more generous terms must be offered less the whole thing turn into a white elephant. It seems like the only places where it would really make sense for the government to build arenas are the ones where private interests are themselves happy to do it so that they can reap all the benefits.

Now if the city is going to build it with a team in mind or not because they have already, for whatever reason, decided to piss away money on something like the olympics, then so be it. Without the real ability to tell the professional team to get lost if they start asking for hand outs, the city is just asking for a Glendale situation where getting hosed on building an arena only leads to getting hosed on keeping it occupied.

Hopefully Glendale will serve as a warning for municipalities in the future. They essentially bet big on the ante without bothering to check their hand. Now that they know they're holding a two and a seven they're forced to keep raising lest they lose their initial misguided bet.

freeweed
Apr 11, 2011, 12:17 AM
On the whole "public money shouldn't be subsidizing millionaire hockey players and billionaire owners" thing... when I go to the Flames games, quite often the concession staff have "volunteer" tags on. Now, I may be a bit naive but I find it hard to believe that there are hundreds of bored teenagers in this city willing to volunteer their time just to line the pockets of some rich guy somewhere.

I'm actually being serious when I ask this - what are these people volunteering for? And is it just barely possible that something like the Saddledome (and replacement facility) isn't merely existing solely for the sake of making someone else richer?

MichaelS
Apr 11, 2011, 2:54 AM
On the whole "public money shouldn't be subsidizing millionaire hockey players and billionaire owners" thing... when I go to the Flames games, quite often the concession staff have "volunteer" tags on. Now, I may be a bit naive but I find it hard to believe that there are hundreds of bored teenagers in this city willing to volunteer their time just to line the pockets of some rich guy somewhere.

I'm actually being serious when I ask this - what are these people volunteering for? And is it just barely possible that something like the Saddledome (and replacement facility) isn't merely existing solely for the sake of making someone else richer?

Not sure if this is the case, but would be my best guess. An organization like a minor hockey league might get the chance to "work the Flames game" and keep a portion of the concession money, similar to working a casino or bingo. I grew up in a small town, and worked (or my parents when I was younger) a couple bingo's a year to help fund my minor hockey team. We were too far away from Edmonton to work an NHL game (not even sure it was an option).

kw5150
Apr 11, 2011, 3:09 AM
I'm with freeweed, Consol Energy Center cost $321 million US, how is an arena in Edmonton going to cost $129 million more? Consol is a state of the art building.

Cheap labour.

AirGuitarChampion
Apr 11, 2011, 4:00 PM
Not sure if this is the case, but would be my best guess. An organization like a minor hockey league might get the chance to "work the Flames game" and keep a portion of the concession money, similar to working a casino or bingo. I grew up in a small town, and worked (or my parents when I was younger) a couple bingo's a year to help fund my minor hockey team. We were too far away from Edmonton to work an NHL game (not even sure it was an option).

This is the case. Even goes beyond minor hockey: a dragonboat team I was on back in 06/07 got a few nights there being the ID / wristband crew. The concessions have volunteers as well although I think they put one paid staffer in there to keep the operation from getting too sideways.

freeweed
Apr 20, 2011, 6:47 PM
This is the first public comment on the new arena in quite some time:

POSTMEDIA: New rink. What’s the latest?

KING: It’s still a two- to five-year project. I can’t conceive of it being any earlier . . . but we need to have a new building, ultimately. We spend a lot of time working on that. We have purposely not unveiled our plans because I don’t think we’re quite ready for that.

POSTMEDIA: That outside range, five years, is that just shovel-in-dirt?

KING: You’d like to think you could open the doors in that five-year horizon.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Flames+president+knows+plenty+work+lies+ahead/4643026/story.html

Innersoul1
Apr 20, 2011, 7:09 PM
This is the first public comment on the new arena in quite some time:



http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Flames+president+knows+plenty+work+lies+ahead/4643026/story.html

So lets assume that the preliminary design process has begun and just needs to be approved and finalized. From shovel in the ground to completion how long would the constructions process take? 2 years?