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

Coldrsx
May 18, 2012, 8:06 PM
^^we are hoping to upgrade our season tickets to the loge.

^no problem

freeweed
May 21, 2012, 2:08 PM
The parking is only 300 stalls under the arena, but downtown Edmonton is probably able to absorb a lot more at night once the office workers have gone home.

I remember the parking issue being a contentious discussion when Winnipeg built the MTS Centre. Mostly by people who clearly have never worked in a downtown office before. I'm pretty sure that any North American city of 500,000+ people has at LEAST 20,000 downtown workers taking cars to the office every day.

Except possibly in Calgary. Not that we'd do it, nor do we even have the land available, but I've always wondered just how many parking spots exist with a 4 or 5 block radius of some random location in the downtown core.

SEsupporter
Jun 28, 2012, 5:21 PM
ALBERTA PREMIER STANDS FIRM ON NO FUNDING FOR OILERS' ARENA

EDMONTON -- Alberta Premier Alison Redford has re-stated that the province will not be investing $100 million in the downtown Edmonton arena project.

Redford told reporters Thursday before the annual premier's dinner in Edmonton that her government's perspective has not changed and will not change.


http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=396223


YES to Calgary INDOOR STADIUM - NO to new flames arena
Hopefully they use N.E. LRT MaxBell station Firestone site still for a new Indoor year round multipurpose stadium desperately needed (Mcmahan built in early 60's) for concerts , football, soccer, baseball, track&field etc to coshare with Calgary recreation instead of spending $600 million to just renovate/redo Glenmore and Foothills Park. Saddledome is still good for hockey (built in mid 80's). We are possibly entering a recession and Mr. Ken K and the flames perhaps should be happy with the convenient, comfortable saddledome for several years yet. They wont be getting my taxpayer money for a new flames arena but they will for a new much needed INDOOR stadium.

Bigtime
Jun 28, 2012, 5:48 PM
YES to Calgary INDOOR STADIUM - NO to new flames arena
Hopefully they use N.E. LRT MaxBell station Firestone site still for a new Indoor year round multipurpose stadium desperately needed (Mcmahan built in early 60's) for concerts , football, soccer, baseball, track&field etc to coshare with Calgary recreation instead of spending $600 million to just renovate/redo Glenmore and Foothills Park. Saddledome is still good for hockey (built in mid 80's). We are possibly entering a recession and Mr. Ken K and the flames perhaps should be happy with the convenient, comfortable saddledome for several years yet. They wont be getting my taxpayer money for a new flames arena but they will for a new much needed INDOOR stadium.

Hate to break it to you, but the government (any level) will get your tax money for whatever they want.

Your view that the Saddledome is still an adequate facility for the Flames and Co. is not correct. If anything it now limits how much money they can make (unless they continue to suck hard and things go downhill), and I am not even speaking of concerts and other events that skip Calgary because of the design limitations of the Saddledome. You need to look beyond just the hockey use.

SEsupporter
Jun 28, 2012, 10:51 PM
Hate to break it to you, but the government (any level) will get your tax money for whatever they want.

Your view that the Saddledome is still an adequate facility for the Flames and Co. is not correct. If anything it now limits how much money they can make (unless they continue to suck hard and things go downhill), and I am not even speaking of concerts and other events that skip Calgary because of the design limitations of the Saddledome. You need to look beyond just the hockey use.

My viewpoint is a new indoor stadium WILL draw the concerts and draw more sports teams,tradeshows etc.. that skip Calgary. We dont need the saddledome for concerts. Keep the dome just for the flames, hitmen and roughnecks. Mr K and the flames may just have to forego extreme corporate target market greediness and the parking revenue during tough times and give average calgarians a chance to attend events.. The average Calgarian can't afford a game as it is now with parking and food prices etc.. Imagine the costs at a new hockey arena when they have access to all revenue. Yes if I had a choice for tax money to an indoor stadium but no if a choice for a new hockey arena.

You Need A Thneed
Jun 28, 2012, 10:56 PM
My viewpoint is a new indoor stadium WILL draw the concerts and draw more sports teams,tradeshows etc.. that skip Calgary. We dont need the saddledome for concerts. Keep the dome just for the flames, hitmen and roughnecks. Mr K and the flames may just have to forego extreme corporate target market greediness and the parking revenue during tough times and give average calgarians a chance to attend events.. The average Calgarian can't afford a game as it is now with parking and food prices etc.. Imagine the costs at a new hockey arena when they have access to all revenue. Yes if I had a choice for tax money to an indoor stadium but no if a choice for a new hockey arena.

You would support an indoor stadium that would get used 20 times a year, but not a arena that would get used 150-200 times a year?

Dale
Jun 29, 2012, 1:47 AM
Should we now expect the Flames to upgrade the Saddledome to tide things over ?

Innersoul1
Jun 29, 2012, 3:16 AM
My viewpoint is a new indoor stadium WILL draw the concerts and draw more sports teams,tradeshows etc.. that skip Calgary. We dont need the saddledome for concerts. Keep the dome just for the flames, hitmen and roughnecks. Mr K and the flames may just have to forego extreme corporate target market greediness and the parking revenue during tough times and give average calgarians a chance to attend events.. The average Calgarian can't afford a game as it is now with parking and food prices etc.. Imagine the costs at a new hockey arena when they have access to all revenue. Yes if I had a choice for tax money to an indoor stadium but no if a choice for a new hockey arena.

Odd that you think the average Calgarian will be able to afford to partake in your pipe-dream of a multi-purpose indoor stadium.

TallBob
Jun 29, 2012, 4:02 AM
I'll take something that will have 150-200 venues (events) a year anytime! Also, convention center expansion. I mentioned a couple days ago, Winnipeg is going to double the size of their convention facility.

93JC
Jun 29, 2012, 3:40 PM
Hopefully they use N.E. LRT MaxBell station Firestone site still for a new Indoor year round multipurpose stadium desperately needed (Mcmahan built in early 60's) for concerts , football, soccer, baseball, track&field etc to coshare with Calgary recreation instead of spending $600 million to just renovate/redo Glenmore and Foothills Park.

:koko:

No. Just, no.

Not necessarily no to a new stadium, but football AND soccer AND baseball AND a track? Awful, awful idea.

50 years of experience has taught us baseball and football shouldn't be played on the same field. The only big stadiums in North America that still support both baseball and football are the Rogers Centre in Toronto and O.co Coliseum in Oakland (and by extension Candlestick Park in San Francisco, built as a baseball stadium but now home only to the 49ers). These facilities are compromised in every way: sightlines from the spectator areas, quality and dimensions of the fields, etc.

FIFA frowns on indoor, artificial turf fields for anything more than recreational soccer games. There are only a handful in North America approved by FIFA; I think the only one in Canada is BC Place.

The running track would interfere with the football field and would have to be removed entirely to accommodate baseball. Not to mention it pushes the spectators further away from soccer and football fields.

Finally there is an enormous disparity in numbers of spectators between the sports. A 35,000+ seat stadium for the Stampeders is monstrously oversized for amateur baseball, soccer and track & field events in Calgary...

polishavenger
Jun 29, 2012, 4:47 PM
I agree that some of these uses are absolutely not compatible and should not be in the same space, but they can be adjacent to a main building that houses the football field. If you employ retracting bleachers, the track component could be on the football field, but that may be cost prohibitive.

:koko:

No. Just, no.

Not necessarily no to a new stadium, but football AND soccer AND baseball AND a track? Awful, awful idea.

50 years of experience has taught us baseball and football shouldn't be played on the same field. The only big stadiums in North America that still support both baseball and football are the Rogers Centre in Toronto and O.co Coliseum in Oakland (and by extension Candlestick Park in San Francisco, built as a baseball stadium but now home only to the 49ers). These facilities are compromised in every way: sightlines from the spectator areas, quality and dimensions of the fields, etc.

FIFA frowns on indoor, artificial turf fields for anything more than recreational soccer games. There are only a handful in North America approved by FIFA; I think the only one in Canada is BC Place.

The running track would interfere with the football field and would have to be removed entirely to accommodate baseball. Not to mention it pushes the spectators further away from soccer and football fields.

Finally there is an enormous disparity in numbers of spectators between the sports. A 35,000+ seat stadium for the Stampeders is monstrously oversized for amateur baseball, soccer and track & field events in Calgary...

RiverRat
Jun 29, 2012, 5:34 PM
I think the most logical thing to do is to build two separate venues for Hockey and Football in the East Village/Victoria Park area.

The Flames want the Saddledome to be demolished if they build a new stadium, and it makes a lot of sense to partner with the Stampede to replace the dome with some type of an outdoor venue, as it is a natural fit for Stampede use.

Also, putting all of this stuff together in the city will create a critical mass that will support a year round hotel, convention, and entertainment district.

patm
Jul 23, 2012, 3:41 PM
Any word from the Flames on arena progress? I mean, if the lease expires in 2014 you would think they would have broken ground by now. Do they expect to build this in under 2 years? We haven't heard any information on anything... Funding, Renders, Location?

Also what do you think the CSA's intention is for Calgary and their bid for the 2026 world cup?

Doug
Jul 23, 2012, 3:49 PM
I wouldn't want a football stadium in the inner city. Save for a few hours on a few days per year, it would be a dead zone.

Calgarian
Jul 23, 2012, 6:41 PM
Any word from the Flames on arena progress? I mean, if the lease expires in 2014 you would think they would have broken ground by now. Do they expect to build this in under 2 years? We haven't heard any information on anything... Funding, Renders, Location?


I'm sure they will just negotiate a lease in the Dome for a few more years. No clue about the new barn though, the Flames are keeping pretty quiet on it, probably waiting to see how everything is worked out in Edmonton.

suburbia
Jul 23, 2012, 9:08 PM
I'm sure they will just negotiate a lease in the Dome for a few more years. No clue about the new barn though, the Flames are keeping pretty quiet on it, probably waiting to see how everything is worked out in Edmonton.

I wonder if it is linked to the convention centre discussions?

monocle
Jul 23, 2012, 9:25 PM
I wonder if it is linked to the convention centre discussions?

That's my completely uninformed guess/hope.

Lots of land in Vic Park around the CT bus barns/across from Fort Calgary to fit them in.

Pros
Keeps the rink central
Still close to LRT (esp. SE LRT?)
Chance to build on new entertainment district
Lots of interesting near-by development happening

Cons
?

MichaelS
Jul 23, 2012, 10:20 PM
^ Cons may be that Remington has other big plans for that land, with Station Lands development. However, they don't appear to be moving soon on it, and may welcome the addition of a big tenant/development like that.

Joborule
Jul 25, 2012, 5:40 PM
I wouldn't want a football stadium in the inner city. Save for a few hours on a few days per year, it would be a dead zone.

It would be a dead zone anywhere. I think it would be good to have it in an area surrounded by a entertainment/retail district. At least then the area around it would still have activity and during events it'll be buzzing before, during, and after the event.

93JC
Jul 25, 2012, 8:03 PM
"Entertainment/retail districts" built around big stadiums tend to be dead when there aren't any events going on in the stadium.

See for example the Westgate City Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_City_Center) in Glendale, Arizona, built around the arena for the Coyotes and football stadium for the Cardinals. It's an enormous white elephant that, outside of Cardinals home games, is almost totally dead.

Granted it's in the middle of nowhere in suburban Phoenix and would be akin to building the Saddledome and McMahon's replacements in Langdon, which is probably not going to happen here... Still, it sounds like a great idea to surround a stadium with retail and 'entertainment' businesses but in practice it hasn't panned out in many cities.


Frankly I think the best location for a new hockey arena would be right about where the Big Four building is right now. It solves pretty much everything that is wrong with the Saddledome's location: the 500 m march (mostly outside!) from Victoria Park station. It would be fantastic if the C-train station could be better integrated with the building, and if 17th Ave SE punches through Macleod Trail and onto the Stampede grounds.

Building the new arena somewhere in the vicinity of 10-12th Ave SE somewhere along 4th St isn't any better than what we have now; in fact it exacerbates the crappy C-train access. The NE "Firepark" location up by Max Bell Arena is awful by comparison.



The Firepark site is also no better than the site McMahon currently sits on. In fact if I were to build a new football stadium I'd probably put it right where McMahon is now. There's going to be a football stadium there for the Dinos anyway, no matter whether the Stampeders play there or not. Might as well make it suitable for the Stampeders too.

It would have been better if the C-train station was built on the west side of Crowchild, nearer the stadium (and University station built in the middle of the U of C campus instead of the middle of Crowchild), but the ship sailed on that in the late 1970s...

Full Mountain
Jul 25, 2012, 8:43 PM
<snip>

It would have been better if the C-train station was built on the west side of Crowchild, nearer the stadium (and University station built in the middle of the U of C campus instead of the middle of Crowchild), but the ship sailed on that in the late 1970s...

The issue with this is that you then isolate those stations from the residential population, this is the population that will use the train on a daily basis, rather than the 13-15 times a year that it's used for the stadium (the train usage for events outside of CFL games and maybe 1 major concert per year isn't significant).

93JC
Jul 25, 2012, 10:40 PM
True, but then how many of the residents of Banff Trail, Hounsfield Heights, etc. are using Banff Trail Station vs. the commuters who park at McMahon Stadium every single day?

I don't disagree with the point you're making in general, I just don't think it applies to Banff Trail and University Stations as much as you might think. I used to park at McMahon and take the train every day and trust me: I barely ever saw someone coming to the station from the east. The vast majority of the people on the platform came across the bridge from McMahon.

Similarly how many residents from Charleswood use the train compared to the number of university students? I'd wager it's at least 20:1 in favour of students.


There was talk earlier in the thread about building the stadiums in the middle of transit-oriented developments. I think the McMahon site itself has a lot of potential for TOD. The parking lots can be replaced with parkades and the new, freed up space can be filled in. I think it'll happen, eventually, and would have worked better if the train station was on the west side of Crowchild. Not to say it should go right into the stadium, just not sequestered away behind Motel Village.

suburbia
Jul 25, 2012, 10:55 PM
The Firepark site is also no better than the site McMahon currently sits on.

Other than the fact that concerts could be held there as the sound complaints would likely be less or non-existent.

Full Mountain
Jul 25, 2012, 10:56 PM
True, but then how many of the residents of Banff Trail, Hounsfield Heights, etc. are using Banff Trail Station vs. the commuters who park at McMahon Stadium every single day?

I don't disagree with the point you're making in general, I just don't think it applies to Banff Trail and University Stations as much as you might think. I used to park at McMahon and take the train every day and trust me: I barely ever saw someone coming to the station from the east. The vast majority of the people on the platform came across the bridge from McMahon.

Similarly how many residents from Charleswood use the train compared to the number of university students? I'd wager it's at least 20:1 in favour of students.


There was talk earlier in the thread about building the stadiums in the middle of transit-oriented developments. I think the McMahon site itself has a lot of potential for TOD. The parking lots can be replaced with parkades and the new, freed up space can be filled in. I think it'll happen, eventually, and would have worked better if the train station was on the west side of Crowchild. Not to say it should go right into the stadium, just not sequestered away behind Motel Village.

University Station:

I agree the placement of the university station could be much better

Banff Trail Station:

It'd be interesting if CT have numbers regarding the origin of the users at Banff Trail, seems like anyone north of 16th would go there. In all reality though Banff Trail is likely there to service McMahon primarily anyway given the proximity of both the Lions Park and University stations.

93JC
Jul 25, 2012, 11:13 PM
Precisely! If I lived east of 19th St I wouldn't bother going to Banff Trail, I'd go to Lions Park. If I live south of 16th Ave again, I'd probably go to Lions Park. Residents as far north as ~27th Ave might walk south to Banff Trail but north of that, why bother? Go to University Station.


As it stands Banff Trail Station isn't even convenient for someone going to/coming from McMahon Stadium but despite that the stadium (and the park & ride) is almost certainly the source of most of the ridership at the station.

Innersoul1
Aug 9, 2012, 8:50 PM
If Markham is serious about getting a new arena I want one too!!

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=402561

MonctonGoldenFlames
Aug 9, 2012, 9:01 PM
If Markham is serious about getting a new arena I want one too!!

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=402561

construction costs seem relatively low, it must be a 'bare bones' type structure with the ability to improve it as they see fit. that might be a great way to get something done here with less-to-no need of government money.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 9, 2012, 9:09 PM
construction costs seem relatively low, it must be a 'bare bones' type structure with the ability to improve it as they see fit. that might be a great way to get something done here with less-to-no need of government money.
Unconstrained site I think has a lot to do with it.

Doug
Aug 9, 2012, 9:27 PM
It would be a dead zone anywhere. I think it would be good to have it in an area surrounded by a entertainment/retail district. At least then the area around it would still have activity and during events it'll be buzzing before, during, and after the event.

So why not put it in an area that is already a dead zone and has no opportunity cost? Think Fire Park. The Stampede Grounds are in the same category: a shameful waste of prime land for an event that lasts 10 days per year. They should move to Fire Park as well.

Calgarian
Aug 9, 2012, 10:17 PM
Every time I see this thread brought back I'm hoping it's because there is an announcement. C'mon King, give us something already!

Innersoul1
Aug 10, 2012, 3:17 PM
I think we need to nip the idea of Firepark in the bud!

Arena's in the middle of nowhere with no services around it are not an advantage to patrons. The only real advantage of firepark is its proximity to the LRT.

kw5150
Aug 10, 2012, 4:17 PM
The fact that we have so many projects around the world to feed off; and, the fact that people are actively discussing how to incorporate the arena into the city so it is not a dead zone, is perfect. I have a feeling we will end up with something great. So many good changes in our city over the years and this will be another one. I like having the flames games downtown, and the football games by the university......it just fits.

suburbia
Aug 10, 2012, 6:48 PM
I think we need to nip the idea of Firepark in the bud!

Arena's in the middle of nowhere with no services around it are not an advantage to patrons. The only real advantage of firepark is its proximity to the LRT.

Firepark is an absolutely fantastic development opportunity. Not only the excellent transit access, it has excellent road network access also (unlike Stampede). There are some services on Barlow, but planning something like this would lead to an immense amount of re-development. The view from there is also exceptional, and access to international avenue could help with that redevelopment also.

DizzyEdge
Aug 10, 2012, 8:46 PM
I think the thing with Firepark, is for any businesses around the new area to be sustainable, the area would need an entire East Village-like redevelopment plan, so that there is a large captive audience of residents to sustain businesses outside of arena usage. Not impossible, but a big investment.

fusili
Aug 10, 2012, 8:47 PM
I think the thing with Firepark, is for any businesses around the new area to be sustainable, the area would need an entire East Village-like redevelopment plan, so that there is a large captive audience of residents to sustain businesses outside of arena usage. Not impossible, but a big investment.

I heard sanitary servicing would be incredibly expensive for that site. This was from a half-remembered conversation though.

Tropics
Aug 10, 2012, 8:50 PM
Firepark has some advantages but not being in the downtown core is a huge negative. People on this forum mostly want a vibrant busy DT core, moving things like arenas out of the core hurt not only the core entertainment, it also hurts the associated bars and restaurants that get alot of their business from people going to the game or a concert that first have a bite to eat or a drink.

Edmonton is putting their arena closer to downtown in hopes of adding some people into the area and revitalizing their core, we do not want to go the opposite route and start moving things like the flames games and concerts out of the core because it will only cause the core to become less vibrant and have less of a night life. Places like New York has their crazy night life because with times square, broadway, ect... there is just so much to do there. We need more stuff to do in downtown Calgary to make the core prosper, not less.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 11, 2012, 8:20 PM
Rumor of West village sports centric development with Football and Hockey is interesting. If they can buy enough of the land early they can capture any potential upside in value.

If the team had options or land in the east village it wouldn't be too hard to find out. Probably $100 on the registry service. Anyone have 'free' access through SPIN or whatever it is called?

Flames stay mum on timeline, location for new arena

Clock ticking on Saddledome lease deal

By Tamara Gignac, Calgary Herald August 11, 2012

With the lease on the Scotiabank Saddledome set to run out in 2014 after more than three decades of hockey games and concerts, speculation continues to build about the location of a new arena.

The Calgary Flames want a modern building to allow the team to compete financially with other National Hockey League franchises. Opened in 1983, the Saddledome is the league’s sixth-oldest arena and nearing the end of its life cycle as far as professional rinks go.

But as the clock ticks on Calgary’s iconic sports facility, Flames officials remain tight-lipped about when — and where — they will break ground on a new arena.

Team president and CEO Ken King said there isn’t any hurry. Although the Flames’ lease on the Saddledome will soon expire, it can be extended for as long it takes to construct a new facility.

“We certainly won’t be ready to move by 2014,” King said.




Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Flames+stay+timeline+location+arena/7074420/story.html#ixzz23GqbLRkF

Tropics
Aug 11, 2012, 9:25 PM
Rumor of West village sports centric development with Football and Hockey is interesting. If they can buy enough of the land early they can capture any potential upside in value.

I think the west side would be an awesome place to look into building an arena.

Build the arena where the greyhound station currently is (terrible location for a bus station, perhaps put THAT at Firepark, Firepark would be a GREAT location for a new bus teminal given the access to the Deerfoot and ring roads). There is enough land there where the bus station is to build a great arena and now the C-train has easy access to it.

Build the parking complex where GSL Chevrolet is atm.

And my hopes are that the land where Renfrew Chrysler is will in time be redeveloped into upscale riverside condos with riverpath grade pubs, restaurants and patios for pedestrian traffic and people seeing a show at the Pumphouse Theater.

The eastern core of the city is golden with the East Village redevelopment, the National Music Center, an ever improving Inglewood. The western side of the core could really use that type of development to revitalize the area and bring some livelyhood to the area. Plus an arena right on the river like that would be a phenomenal picture taking and city marketing opportunity on every Flames game broadcast.

Chealion
Aug 12, 2012, 7:49 AM
If they can buy enough of the land early they can capture any potential upside in value.

Doesn't the city already own most of that land?

I think the west side would be an awesome place to look into building an arena.

The West Village ARP looks almost entirely residential with some mixed use at the moment.

isaidso
Aug 13, 2012, 8:30 AM
As long as it has a roof shaped like a saddle and its called the Saddledome I'm all for it. It's a symbol of your city and its wise to play to ones strengths. Too many cities lack an identity. Don't play it down, play it up.

Tropics
Aug 13, 2012, 9:03 PM
As long as it has a roof shaped like a saddle and its called the Saddledome I'm all for it. It's a symbol of your city and its wise to play to ones strengths. Too many cities lack an identity. Don't play it down, play it up.

We have quite enough identity as the stetson wearing right wing redneck city, we do not need to push that completely wrong idea of who we are any further. We are not that related to the ranching and old west things like we once were, we have evolved and progressed into new things.

We will always have the Calgary Stampede, the cowboy art, Fort Calgary, ect... to keep that aspect of the city alive, we do not need a giant saddle shaped arena.

We should be building things that market this city as a powerful, fast paced, economic powerhouse in the oil industry second in NA only to Houston.

Edmonton has the right idea, there arena in the shape of a drop of oil was a brilliant way to link their city and the team to the architecture and have some real symbolism that says "this is who Edmonton is!" today. Calgary does not need to go retro and build something that says "this is what Calgary was over half a century ago and has nothing to do with what we are really about today!"

Link Calgary's arena into a rocky mountain theme, a chinook theme, something linked to the oil industry would have been great but Edmonton beat us to the punch on that.

Build an arena that tells people what Calgary is, not what it was.

Calgarian
Aug 13, 2012, 9:20 PM
We have quite enough identity as the stetson wearing right wing redneck city, we do not need to push that completely wrong idea of who we are any further. We are not that related to the ranching and old west things like we once were, we have evolved and progressed into new things.

We will always have the Calgary Stampede, the cowboy art, Fort Calgary, ect... to keep that aspect of the city alive, we do not need a giant saddle shaped arena.

We should be building things that market this city as a powerful, fast paced, economic powerhouse in the oil industry second in NA only to Houston.

Edmonton has the right idea, there arena in the shape of a drop of oil was a brilliant way to link their city and the team to the architecture and have some real symbolism that says "this is who Edmonton is!" today. Calgary does not need to go retro and build something that says "this is what Calgary was over half a century ago and has nothing to do with what we are really about today!"

Link Calgary's arena into a rocky mountain theme, a chinook theme, something linked to the oil industry would have been great but Edmonton beat us to the punch on that.

Build an arena that tells people what Calgary is, not what it was.

Cowboys have very little to do with Calgary or Calgary's history, forcing it as our image to the world is just plain wrong and drives me nuts. The railroad and oil built this city, but we have no real monuments to either, and that's fine. Calgary needs to market itself as a modern cosmopolitan city, and whatever our new arena looks like it should be free from lame metaphors that try to convey our image to the world. It should be a nice, modern arena that looks like a modern arena, no cues to banff or mountains, no cues to the oil industry, no fake western heritage theme. Modern contemporary architecture reflects the times and that's what this city should try to embrace.

The Chemist
Aug 13, 2012, 11:41 PM
As long as it has a roof shaped like a saddle and its called the Saddledome I'm all for it. It's a symbol of your city and its wise to play to ones strengths. Too many cities lack an identity. Don't play it down, play it up.

As distinctive as it is, the saddle-shaped roof is one of the reasons the Saddledome needs replacing - it simply cannot support the weight of the equipment used for modern concert shows, so it is unable to play host to a lot of concert tours and thus misses out on a major source of revenue.

artvandelay
Aug 14, 2012, 1:26 AM
Cowboys have very little to do with Calgary or Calgary's history, forcing it as our image to the world is just plain wrong and drives me nuts. The railroad and oil built this city, but we have no real monuments to either, and that's fine.

This is incorrect - Calgary was the centre of the ranching industry in Alberta from the arrival of the railroad until around 1905-1910, when farming began to replace most of the open range in Alberta. Although Calgary lacked the gunfights and violence of the American west, it was very much a rough frontier town up until the early 1900s. Ranch-hands and cowboys from around Alberta would come to the city to blow off steam in Calgary's brothels, saloons and gambling halls, which were all operated with the complicity of the local police and town council.

This activity all came to an end by 1910, after the population had increased 10-fold in the preceding decade. New arrivals from the east began impose 'proper british values' on the city, and this along with the decline of ranching meant the end of Calgary's frontier days. The initial Stampede of 1912 was intended by the Big Four cattle barons as a one time homage to Calgary's past ranching heritage, but it was so popular that it eventually became a yearly event.

If you would like to learn more about Calgary's early days, read some of Max Foran's books. They provide a very interesting, in depth look at the history of the city.

Calgary needs to market itself as a modern cosmopolitan city, and whatever our new arena looks like it should be free from lame metaphors that try to convey our image to the world. It should be a nice, modern arena that looks like a modern arena, no cues to banff or mountains, no cues to the oil industry, no fake western heritage theme. Modern contemporary architecture reflects the times and that's what this city should try to embrace.

The Stampede brand is fantastic and it attracts tourism from across the globe. Every other city in the world markets itself as being cosmopolitan, diverse, modern etc, there's absolutely nothing unique about it.

Back on topic - the Saddledome is actually a fairly modern piece of architecture, it was not designed with the aim of having a western theme, the Saddle name came in a contest later. The chances that the new arena will be better than it in terms of architectural interest are very slim. Just look at any new arena that's been built in North America - they are all shit with the exception of the Sprint Center in KC. The Flames have cited the Consol Energy Center in press about the new arena, and it looks like a big box store:

http://c10566323.r23.cf2.rackcdn.com/03-29-16_the-consol-energy-center_original.jpg
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/consol-energy-center-charged-up-ready-to-go-259681/)

93JC
Aug 14, 2012, 2:49 AM
Back on topic - the Saddledome is actually a fairly modern piece of architecture, it was not designed with the aim of having a western theme, the Saddle name came in a contest later. The chances that the new arena will be better than it in terms of architectural interest are very slim. Just look at any new arena that's been built in North America - they are all shit with the exception of the Sprint Center in KC. The Flames have cited the Consol Energy Center in press about the new arena, and it looks like a big box store:



:iagree: :rock:

Tropics
Aug 14, 2012, 2:53 AM
Just look at any new arena that's been built in North America - they are all shit with the exception of the Sprint Center in KC.

The Edmonton arena renderings are pure awesome and blow the Saddledome out of the water.

The Saddledome is old and stale and VERY dated. It looks like old Calgary along with it's taller older brother the Calgary Tower. The tower will stay, the dome can go though.

One big problem I have with the Saddledome is the lack of natural light and large window walls or skylights. It sucks to be in there when it is packed with people and it is all walls everywhere. Alot of the more recent arenas are building huge glass walls that give the sense of way more space when you are inside the building and that makes being in a crowded building like that alot more enjoyable and gives the sense of space when compared to concrete walls.

MichaelS
Aug 14, 2012, 3:33 PM
The Edmonton arena renderings are pure awesome and blow the Saddledome out of the water.

The Saddledome is old and stale and VERY dated. It looks like old Calgary along with it's taller older brother the Calgary Tower. The tower will stay, the dome can go though.

One big problem I have with the Saddledome is the lack of natural light and large window walls or skylights. It sucks to be in there when it is packed with people and it is all walls everywhere. Alot of the more recent arenas are building huge glass walls that give the sense of way more space when you are inside the building and that makes being in a crowded building like that alot more enjoyable and gives the sense of space when compared to concrete walls.

I will be very surprised if the Edmonton Arena comes out looking like the renderings shown, once the costs start adding up.

Innersoul1
Sep 11, 2012, 6:20 PM
This is a very interesting piece of news!

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405032

It would make for a pretty awesome sports area in Seattle with Safeco and Century Link in the same spot!

Let's get Calgary a new arena already!

craner
Sep 11, 2012, 6:43 PM
This is a very interesting piece of news!

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405032

It would make for a pretty awesome sports area in Seattle with Safeco and Century Link in the same spot!

Let's get Calgary a new arena already!

If I had my preference we would be building a new football stadium first.

You Need A Thneed
Sep 12, 2012, 4:17 PM
If I had my preference we would be building a new football stadium first.

A football stadium would be nice, but would cost as much as a hockey arena, and get used ~15 times a year, instead of ~150+ times a year that a hockey arena would.

MichaelS
Sep 12, 2012, 6:55 PM
What makes you say 150? There are only approximately 40 regular season home games for the Flames. Not sure how often the Hitmen play at home but doubting it is 110.

Bigtime
Sep 12, 2012, 7:00 PM
Concerts and other events held at the Dome is probably what he is referring to.

craner
Sep 12, 2012, 7:01 PM
A football stadium would be nice, but would cost as much as a hockey arena, and get used ~15 times a year, instead of ~150+ times a year that a hockey arena would.

I kmow but McMahon is 60 years old and a total embarrassment to the city.

suburbia
Sep 12, 2012, 7:15 PM
I agree with all the recent posts - it is just a matter of perspective.

I'm not sure which, and arena or stadium, I've prefer first (maybe a stadium, but am not 100%), but can tell you that either will need to be constructed such that it is more flexible and can manage more events. BC Place, as an example, is a pretty good exhibition space (150K sf field + 75K sf seat annex), so there is no reason why a covered stadium in Calgary can't be constructed in concert with a convention centre, and potentially act as an alternate exhibition space. [this is just an example that comes to mind - lose the subject in the object and follow the multi-purpose train of thought]. In the case of an arena, it could also be a smaller exhibition space, but likely more important would be the ability to be a large theatre, and within that context, could also work in consort with a convention centre.

BC Place food & cooking festival:
http://www.rickchung.com/2012/06/eat-vancouver-food-festival-bc-place.html

BC Place auto show:
http://www.vancouversun.com/cars/Message+from+Blair+Qualey/6404585/story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/Photos+Vancouver+International+Auto+Show/2748191/story.html
http://ca.autoblog.com/2011/10/26/vancouver-auto-show/

BC Place home & garden show:
http://seansadventuresinflavortown.com/2012/02/26/bc-home-and-garden-show-2012/

Now granted, we have the BMO centre also, but truth be told, we still can't get all of the items we'd like to get. A proper stadium, perhaps within spitting distance of a convention centre, could quite likely be used way more than 15 times per year. The monster truck shows would certainly be better than in the saddledome! And frankly, why worry about what is or is not possible with the roof of the saddledome if the stadium is better anyway. When will Calgary get a show with 50K people I wonder? Aren't we due?

Innersoul1
Sep 12, 2012, 7:59 PM
As long as the Stadium is at the University I don't think that it is conducive as convention space. I do like how flexible BC place is, but it also benefits from a fantastic location.

polishavenger
Sep 12, 2012, 8:07 PM
I kmow but McMahon is 60 years old and a total embarrassment to the city.

I agree, but I think the superstructure can still be used. The overall redevelopment of that entire area has great potential, but I have a feeling it would be squandered. I already know of plans to build standard suburban style retail on the crowchild side of the stadium. I hope the city kills any effort to do that.

suburbia
Sep 12, 2012, 8:07 PM
As long as the Stadium is at the University I don't think that it is conducive as convention space. I do like how flexible BC place is, but it also benefits from a fantastic location.

Completely agree. Just putting it out there that the planning for the convention centre could be thoughtfully integrated into a larger site plan including a sports facility or two. Let's just say that it is opportune timing, and in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Flames have already thought this through. Wheels are churning, I just don't know which ones are gaining traction at this point.

DizzyEdge
Sep 12, 2012, 9:19 PM
Edmonton arena deal on uncertain ground after developer asks for more money

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Edmonton+City+Council+turns+down+Katz+Group+request+more/7232091/story.html

Bigtime
Sep 12, 2012, 9:27 PM
Edmonton arena deal on uncertain ground after developer asks for more money

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Edmonton+City+Council+turns+down+Katz+Group+request+more/7232091/story.html

N9Uw97lOOlk

jsbertram
Sep 12, 2012, 9:34 PM
As long as the Stadium is at the University I don't think that it is conducive as convention space. I do like how flexible BC place is, but it also benefits from a fantastic location.

Isn't McMahon & surrounding land owned by UofC?

If so, would the University want to get involved with building a new Conventrion Centre as part of a new stadium on the site?


I've often wondered if the Motel Village site could be scraped clean and a new arena built there.
(but we gotta keep Nick's Steakhouse!!)

The CTrain station is already there.
Unfortunately, the community of Banff Trail is right next door.

suburbia
Sep 12, 2012, 9:40 PM
Isn't McMahon & surrounding land owned by UofC?

If so, would the University want to get involved with building a new Conventrion Centre as part of a new stadium on the site?

I've often wondered if the Motel Village site could be scraped clean and a new arena built there. The CTrain station is already there.
(but we gotta keep Nick's Steakhouse!!)

You're never going to get the required concentration of *high quality* hotel rooms in that area for a convention centre. The convention crowd will not be into renting units at Kaleidoscope.

MichaelS
Sep 12, 2012, 10:27 PM
I agree, but I think the superstructure can still be used. The overall redevelopment of that entire area has great potential, but I have a feeling it would be squandered. I already know of plans to build standard suburban style retail on the crowchild side of the stadium. I hope the city kills any effort to do that.

Can you share any details about this? It was announced in March of 2011 I think that the University was going to do an RFP for those lands, and use the proceeds to refurbish the stadium. Then, nothing.

I am not sure if the City would be able to prevent anything, as the University is kind of an "autonomous" entity within City Limits, not requiring a development permit on their lands. They can do a development liason if they want, but again not required.

Ice Cream Man
Sep 18, 2012, 10:40 PM
I don't post here often, but I have lurked for a long time... I have it on good authority that the West Village is one of the serious contenders for the new site of the arena, with other potential developments attached.

monocle
Sep 18, 2012, 10:47 PM
I don't post here often, but I have lurked for a long time... I have it on good authority that the West Village is one of the serious contenders for the new site of the arena, with other potential developments attached.

What kinds of other developments? Are we talking mixed use, or a football stadium as well?

Calgarian
Sep 18, 2012, 10:51 PM
Probably a convention centre as well, would be great if we could do something like the Staples Center / LA live here, not getting my hopes up though.

You Need A Thneed
Sep 18, 2012, 11:00 PM
With the Flames now owning the Stampeders, I do wonder if they are considering building somewhere where they could build two facilities close together. West Village would work, and could met all of their want list - downtown, close to transit, close to main roads, etc.

With them building that, I could definitely see them kicking the tires on a large convention space as part of that project too. Anything to bring in more revenue.

monocle
Sep 18, 2012, 11:09 PM
With the Flames now owning the Stampeders, I do wonder if they are considering building somewhere where they could build two facilities close together. West Village would work, and could met all of their want list - downtown, close to transit, close to main roads, etc.

With them building that, I could definitely see them kicking the tires on a large convention space as part of that project too. Anything to bring in more revenue.

Are there savings to be had combing the two sports' facilities?
Training facilities, concession, etc.
Could a hotel be incorporated serving the visiting teams?
Is there enough room in the WV for Hockey/Football/Convention/Hotel(s)?

Wooster
Sep 18, 2012, 11:13 PM
The problem with West Village is the huge costs associated with any sort of development - realigning Bow Trail, cleaning up the massive contamination (creosote), etc.

DizzyEdge
Sep 18, 2012, 11:24 PM
Huge costs for sure, but the location is pretty good in a geographical sense.

Calgarian
Sep 18, 2012, 11:25 PM
Are there savings to be had combing the two sports' facilities?
Training facilities, concession, etc.
Could a hotel be incorporated serving the visiting teams?
Is there enough room in the WV for Hockey/Football/Convention/Hotel(s)?

I don't know if there would really be cost savings, but both teams are looking at a new facility, so why not kill 2 birds with one stone? An arena district would be pretty sweet, especially if it turns a dead part of the city into something vibrant.

Calgarian
Sep 18, 2012, 11:26 PM
The problem with West Village is the huge costs associated with any sort of development - realigning Bow Trail, cleaning up the massive contamination (creosote), etc.

They can probably get the city to contribute a huge amount of money to that, probably the province as well. It will all happen whether or not they build the arena there or not.

McMurph
Sep 18, 2012, 11:46 PM
I don't know if there would really be cost savings, but both teams are looking at a new facility, so why not kill 2 birds with one stone? An arena district would be pretty sweet, especially if it turns a dead part of the city into something vibrant.

Have you ever seen a football stadium turn a dead area "vibrant". Hockey or baseball, maybe. Football just seems to have way to big a footprint and far too infrequent use.

I wouldn't mind seeing a new arena anchor the West Village as long as it's in line with the existing mixed use plan they've put forward for the area. I think that football plus hockey (with or without convention) and all the associated parking would make the area about as vibrant as the freeways and car dealers we've already got down there.

Calgarian
Sep 19, 2012, 12:43 AM
Have you ever seen a football stadium turn a dead area "vibrant". Hockey or baseball, maybe. Football just seems to have way to big a footprint and far too infrequent use.

I wouldn't mind seeing a new arena anchor the West Village as long as it's in line with the existing mixed use plan they've put forward for the area. I think that football plus hockey (with or without convention) and all the associated parking would make the area about as vibrant as the freeways and car dealers we've already got down there.

The stadum itself isn't going to change anything, but all the other things that get built into the "arena district" would, especially if the proposal includes a convention centre.

Ice Cream Man
Sep 19, 2012, 1:36 AM
What kinds of other developments? Are we talking mixed use, or a football stadium as well?

I don't want to give out details at this point, but put it this way - it would be illogical to not consider all sporting options.

If the mods want to verify anything, that's fine. If not, that's cool too. I am in the industry.

McMurph
Sep 19, 2012, 1:59 AM
The stadum itself isn't going to change anything, but all the other things that get built into the "arena district" would, especially if the proposal includes a convention centre.

I actually am curious about whether there are any good precedents for how to site a football stadium in a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly neighbourhood. It seems like a lot of building to walk around when it's not in use. That's the same problem I've got with convention centres, even when they're great architecture. Siting these things on otherwise largely unusable land (like along the tracks) seems like a better option than right beside the river.

suburbia
Sep 19, 2012, 2:35 AM
The problem with West Village is the huge costs associated with any sort of development - realigning Bow Trail, cleaning up the massive contamination (creosote), etc.

If it was stadium, arena and convention centre, that is easily $1.5B+ right there, plus at least an additional $500M of immediate development in the vicinity. That scale would be enough to make people think seriously about realignments and the like. Such a realignment could dovetail into an improvement for Crowchild in that vicinity also, yes?

monocle
Sep 19, 2012, 2:38 AM
I don't want to give out details at this point, but put it this way - it would be illogical to not consider all sporting options.

If the mods want to verify anything, that's fine. If not, that's cool too. I am in the industry.

Jai alai!!
(or soccer?)

McMurph
Sep 19, 2012, 2:42 AM
Jai alai!!
(or soccer?)

Greyhound racing.

artvandelay
Sep 19, 2012, 3:04 AM
Jai alai!!

It's the next big thing!

luGVbYNWqjU

Wooster
Sep 19, 2012, 3:48 AM
If it was stadium, arena and convention centre, that is easily $1.5B+ right there, plus at least an additional $500M of immediate development in the vicinity. That scale would be enough to make people think seriously about realignments and the like. Such a realignment could dovetail into an improvement for Crowchild in that vicinity also, yes?

Arena, stadium and convention centre all assume some proportion of public funding as well - on top of remediation costs. It's not like it's $1.5 billion in purely private investment that could pay back a Tax Increment Finance scheme.

It doesn't seem a likely location for convention centre expansion unless a bunch of hotels were to be built out there as well.

You Need A Thneed
Sep 19, 2012, 3:53 AM
If it was stadium, arena and convention centre, that is easily $1.5B+ right there, plus at least an additional $500M of immediate development in the vicinity. That scale would be enough to make people think seriously about realignments and the like. Such a realignment could dovetail into an improvement for Crowchild in that vicinity also, yes?

I agree. Such a project could need a space where cleaning up contaminated ground and realigning roads could be the easiest option. $50+ million to do that might be the preferred option. If the owners wanted to a combined project like that, they would need a big parcel of land, and there aren't too many inner city options.

DizzyEdge
Sep 19, 2012, 5:43 AM
Re: football stadiums not having much use

Would it make sense than that of any stadium/arena that the football one should be designed for multiple uses? (concerts, convention, etc)

MalcolmTucker
Sep 19, 2012, 3:17 PM
Adding football to a multiuse enclosed space isn't going to bring in enough revenue to make up for the marginal cost compared to even a new modern outdoor park.

BC might be a special case - do they have a trade show area like BMO, Expo Centre, or Direct Energy? Then again, is BC Place enclosed enough now to host a car show in the middle of winter?

Innersoul1
Sep 19, 2012, 5:01 PM
The problem with West Village is the huge costs associated with any sort of development - realigning Bow Trail, cleaning up the massive contamination (creosote), etc.

This is the reason why it won't happen in the West Village. The Flames as an ownership group don't have the money to mess around with time or money. If they run into any reclamation issues in the West Village it would cost bundles of money.

I actually am curious about whether there are any good precedents for how to site a football stadium in a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly neighbourhood. It seems like a lot of building to walk around when it's not in use. That's the same problem I've got with convention centres, even when they're great architecture. Siting these things on otherwise largely unusable land (like along the tracks) seems like a better option than right beside the river.

I don't think that North America has really accomplished this. The best examples are in Europe where stadia are located smack in the middle of neighbourhoods or business districts.

s211
Sep 19, 2012, 5:16 PM
I don't think that North America has really accomplished this. The best examples are in Europe where stadia are located smack in the middle of neighbourhoods or business districts.

Fenway Park, perhaps?

Calgarian
Sep 19, 2012, 5:20 PM
This is the reason why it won't happen in the West Village. The Flames as an ownership group don't have the money to mess around with time or money. If they run into any reclamation issues in the West Village it would cost bundles of money.


The same could be said for any private development there then. I think the key is funding from the city and province for the re-alignment and remediation. Seeing how messy the funding issue is getting in Edmonton, I'm not holding my breath for anything involving a new arena or stadium for a while.

You Need A Thneed
Sep 19, 2012, 5:26 PM
Fenway Park, perhaps?

Wrigley Field, too.

DizzyEdge
Sep 19, 2012, 7:36 PM
Wrigley Field would be interesting to try to mimic, it would be like just clearing 2 blocks in Sunnyside and building a stadium with no parking.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 19, 2012, 7:56 PM
The same could be said for any private development there then. I think the key is funding from the city and province for the re-alignment and remediation. Seeing how messy the funding issue is getting in Edmonton, I'm not holding my breath for anything involving a new arena or stadium for a while.
A TIF will be far riskier for the west village in my mind, can't just change the district boundaries to move a new office tower into the district to make sure you look net positive on paper. That being said, it isn't like TIFs raise new money anyways, they are just a good way to present to the public the costs, advantages, and risks of subsidy to new development.

fusili
Sep 19, 2012, 8:10 PM
A TIF will be far riskier for the west village in my mind, can't just change the district boundaries to move a new office tower into the district to make sure you look net positive on paper. That being said, it isn't like TIFs raise new money anyways, they are just a good way to present to the public the costs, advantages, and risks of subsidy to new development.

Whatever do you mean? It's not like we have ever adjusted a TIF boundary artificially to include an office tower to make it look good on paper, say between 6th and 5th avenue and just east of Centre st....... wait a minute!!! ;)

monocle
Sep 19, 2012, 10:32 PM
...Seeing how messy the funding issue is getting in Edmonton, I'm not holding my breath for anything involving a new arena or stadium for a while.

This makes me think it (new arena/convention centre) will be at least touching the Stampede grounds if not actually on the grounds itself because of the cozy and lucrative relations the City/Flames/Stampede share. Our team's owners have been involved for 30 years, and have repoire with the City and CS. CS and the City have a mutually beneficial relationship. They probably all want the same outcome, where as Katz is a big fish in a small pond out for his bottom line first and foremost.

I'm still betting on the Bus Barns/over the tracks across from FT Calgary for both the arena and convention centre. OK just hoping, as I have it on zero authority.:banana:

Calgarian
Sep 20, 2012, 1:21 AM
I thought the Flames and Stampede weren't so close anymore, don't know where I heard that though...

Surferguy
Sep 20, 2012, 2:56 PM
how about this for an idea,

The creosote would have to be remediated via a dig and dump style excavation. If that was the case could they not bury the hockey stadium underneath the football stadium?? Dig a hole, get rid of the shitty dirt, build a hockey stadium then cap it and build a football/soccer stadium.

By stacking them, you are left with one footprint and the ability to build convention centre space??? Kind of like MSG in NYC with several event spaces stacked.

Flame away...

Innersoul1
Sep 20, 2012, 3:02 PM
how about this for an idea,

The creosote would have to be remediated via a dig and dump style excavation. If that was the case could they not bury the hockey stadium underneath the football stadium?? Dig a hole, get rid of the shitty dirt, build a hockey stadium then cap it and build a football/soccer stadium.

By stacking them, you are left with one footprint and the ability to build convention centre space??? Kind of like MSG in NYC with several event spaces stacked.

Flame away...

Novel concept, but I think at that particular location the water table would really come into play.

kw5150
Sep 20, 2012, 3:03 PM
how about this for an idea,

The creosote would have to be remediated via a dig and dump style excavation. If that was the case could they not bury the hockey stadium underneath the football stadium?? Dig a hole, get rid of the shitty dirt, build a hockey stadium then cap it and build a football/soccer stadium.

By stacking them, you are left with one footprint and the ability to build convention centre space??? Kind of like MSG in NYC with several event spaces stacked.

Flame away...

That could be cool if done right and the hockey stadium didnt feel like a bunker. I imagine the engineering costs would be astronomical.....the construction would be more like showing off than building something purely functional.

Surferguy
Sep 20, 2012, 3:13 PM
Novel concept, but I think at that particular location the water table would really come into play.

True, thought about that but then decided I would leave that problem for more educated people.

Regarding the bunker comment above from KW, I honestly don't think it would be any different from the current stadium.

I cannot say once inside the stadium I ever remember trying to see sunlight from outside, it just does not factor in. Furthermore, games and concerts are usually at night and mostly in winter so IMO the bunker thought line would be no different from current standards. At the saddledome at least

kw5150
Sep 20, 2012, 3:17 PM
True, thought about that but then decided I would leave that problem for more educated people.

Regarding the bunker comment above from KW, I honestly don't think it would be any different from the current stadium.

I cannot say once inside the stadium I ever remember trying to see sunlight from outside, it just does not factor in. Furthermore, games and concerts are usually at night and mostly in winter so IMO the bunker thought line would be no different from current standards. At the saddledome at least

Except, knowing that you are going deep down into a space has a psychological effect and can harbor feelings of being trapped. in the event of an emergency, the bunker effect could be really bad. They would almost need massive lightwells in the circulation areas and grand escape stairways out of the space.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 20, 2012, 3:44 PM
Novel concept, but I think at that particular location the water table would really come into play.
Well, that would give us a good nickname. The flaming bathtub!

nick.flood
Sep 20, 2012, 3:50 PM
delete

DizzyEdge
Sep 20, 2012, 4:21 PM
how about this for an idea,

The creosote would have to be remediated via a dig and dump style excavation. If that was the case could they not bury the hockey stadium underneath the football stadium?? Dig a hole, get rid of the shitty dirt, build a hockey stadium then cap it and build a football/soccer stadium.

By stacking them, you are left with one footprint and the ability to build convention centre space??? Kind of like MSG in NYC with several event spaces stacked.

Flame away...

I seem to recall such an idea being mentioned in the past and the issue was you couldn't have the huge open center area without supports that a stadium/arena demands, and still support something on top of it.