[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Lil Pedro]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

i would bet the dome stays and corral is knocked down. Also would not be surprised if youth campus or bmo centre goes to give way to convention centre or field house in future

Isn't the corral scheduled to be knocked down in a year or so for BMO Centre expansion anyway?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

I was hoping they'd keep the dome around as event space or something if possible. Seems a shame to remove it since it's one of the most recognizable parts of our skyline.

Yeah I felt that, too.

The Dome's fate will depend a lot on an Olympic bid. If the city wants to go through with it they will need to keep it up until 2026 at least to be the figure skating and short track venue while the new arena takes hockey.

Then you're not only dealing with an iconic part of the skyline, but also a building that has taken part in two Olympic games: whatever push there would be to make it a Historic site before would be given more weight after.

Trouble is that the roof does limit what it can be used for. How much of the main event level can be converted to convention space and what could the upper bowl space be converted to?

Here's what the insides of Maple Leaf Gardens were done up to be



The roof limits some options but the city doesn't really need another small (sub 2,500 seats) hockey/curling venue and one of my thoughts was movie theatres if that was doable but it would all have to work with the Stampede's needs and would require a lot of money that would only realistically come with an Olympic bid and would only make the Olympic costs less palatable to people, so it might not be in the cards.

If it was torn down I would recommend a frame of the roof be erected with a bunch of LED lights so that a 'silhouette' of sorts would always be present in the city's southern skyline.

[CorbeauNoir]

The dome is way oversized for figure skating/short track though. I imagine they'd do something similar to what Vancouver did with a bunch of their facilities, build something new to host the events and then after the games repurpose the building into something else.

I mean ideally Calgary would tell the IOC to #### off right from the beginning and drop even thinking about a bid, but...

[Tyler]

Can't Winsport handle a majority of the overflow events?

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

If we're going to bandy about with an obsession about being world class: irrelevant of personal taste, world class cities attract the interest to build projects by guys like Calatrava, or SOM, or Norman Foster. The notion that the status of an NHL arena somehow affects the architectural pedigree that's come to this city over the last decade is absurd.

Cool story bro, but I was in Miami a month ago and drove by the Marlins stadium. It is probably the most gorgeous sporting arena I have ever seen. It also sits off the side of a highway and is an afterthought on the list of Miami architecture.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Cool story bro, but I was in Miami a month ago and drove by the Marlins stadium. It is probably the most gorgeous sporting arena I have ever seen. It also sits off the side of a highway and is an afterthought on the list of Miami architecture.

Yesh, amazing stadium for sure. Unfortunate about the paint job on the inside though. Looks like someone threw up all over the concourse after drinking one of those new unicorn drinks from Starbucks. That stadium actually has parking garages that correspond with your ticket (IE 1st base seats has a 1st base garage and so on).

I was extremely impressed.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Can't Winsport handle a majority of the overflow events?

We only have 1 rink with suitable capacity for Olympic events. I doubt any organizer is going to want to hold an event on a 400 seat NHL sized rink. All the events would have to be held at the MMC, so I can see a 3000 seat arena being used for Women's hockey or maybe a curling event, but that's about it.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Cool story bro, but I was in Miami a month ago and drove by the Marlins stadium. It is probably the most gorgeous sporting arena I have ever seen. It also sits off the side of a highway and is an afterthought on the list of Miami architecture.

The widespread ridicule the Marlins' stadium has recieved notwithstanding, who exactly out there is defining Miami as 'world class' on the basis of a baseball stadium? Citing a new Flames arena in the same terms is equally ridiculous.

You can't revolve a city's civic health around the narrow demands of blue-collar sports fans.

[TheAlpineOracle]

So why does anyone respond to CorbeauNoir? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they have 39 posts over a 3 year span and every last single one of them is in regard to a thread on a new arena. Not a single solitary post anywhere else. This is obviously's some member's troll account on the new arena subject. If you look at the posting style, it's pretty obvious whose account it is in my opinion.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

The widespread ridicule the Marlins' stadium has recieved notwithstanding, who exactly out there is defining Miami as 'world class' on the basis of a baseball stadium? Citing a new Flames arena in the same terms is equally ridiculous.

You can't revolve a city's civic health around the narrow demands of blue-collar sports fans.

I took that post to mean the opposite. More like "They have a really nice baseball stadium, but its in the middle of nowhere and not considered part of the architecture of the city".

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

So why does anyone respond to CorbeauNoir? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they have 39 posts over a 3 year span and every last single one of them is in regard to a thread on a new arena. Not a single solitary post anywhere else. This is obviously's some member's troll account on the new arena subject. If you look at the posting style, it's pretty obvious whose account it is in my opinion.

It's almost as if a massive civic infrastructure project has a far greater effect on far more people than the results of Flames regular-season games, crazy. Sorry, I'm not interested in getting scammed the way Edmonton did, if calling me a 'troll' for that unfathomably-outrageous belief makes you sleep better at night go nuts.

(I've posted in Foothills FC threads in the past, incidentally)

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

It's almost as if a massive civic infrastructure project has a far greater effect on far more people than the results of Flames regular-season games, crazy. Sorry, I'm not interested in getting scammed the way Edmonton did, if calling me a 'troll' makes you sleep better at night go nuts.

So you signed up on a Calgary Flames messageboard solely to comment on the infrastructure of a new stadium? Sorry, not buying it. I'm calling this a troll account, because it is. You only have 39 posts in 3 years of membership at CP and 99.99% of them are in this thread. You don't post about the Flames, you don't post about anything else in the Calgary community, just on the evils of a new stadium.

A good debate on the subject can't be had with you taking the thread hostage with your own ideology. Given this account became rather active again around about the same time a poster with similar view points was given time in the "sin bin", i'd be willing to wager a decent chunk of change as to whose second account this is.

I could be wrong for sure on the above for sure, but this whole stadium debate is becoming cumbersome even to the people like me that aren't even fully on board with it. Nothing can be posted about details, planning, costs, etc. without it becoming completely derailed.

[powderjunkie]

I think it will be a question for Stampede whether they can generate enough revenue to offset the operating expenses of the Dome, plus opportunity cost of what else the land could be. Parking? New Coke Stage?

Ice time is always a safe revenue bet (as it was in the Corral). You would think the space could be useful to certain conferences/events.

During Stampede time, it has still been a useful space for ag programming/concerts. One would think Stampede concerts would move to the new building, but the Dome could still attractive to host an additional ticketed event - a run of Disney on Ice, a proper cirque production, etc. Stampede likes pre-ticketed events as they include 'free-admission', even if the gate portion they take is less, it helps drive attendance.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

So you signed up on a Calgary Flames messageboard solely to comment on the infrastructure of a new stadium? Sorry, not buying it. I'm calling this a troll account, because it is. You only have 39 posts in 3 years of membership at CP and 99.99% of them are in this thread. You don't post about the Flames, you don't post about anything else in the Calgary community, just on the evils of a new stadium.

A good debate on the subject can't be had with you taking the thread hostage with your own ideology. Given this account became rather active again around about the same time a poster with similar view points was given time in the "sin bin", i'd be willing to wager a decent chunk of change as to whose second account this is.

I could be wrong for sure on the above for sure, but this whole stadium debate is becoming cumbersome even to the people like me that aren't even fully on board with it. Nothing can be posted about details, planning, costs, etc. without it becoming completely derailed.

Complains about derailed thread while derailing it completely.

Who cares about his post history, he is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think it will be a question for Stampede whether they can generate enough revenue to offset the operating expenses of the Dome, plus opportunity cost of what else the land could be. Parking? New Coke Stage?

Ice time is always a safe revenue bet (as it was in the Corral). You would think the space could be useful to certain conferences/events.

During Stampede time, it has still been a useful space for ag programming/concerts. One would think Stampede concerts would move to the new building, but the Dome could still attractive to host an additional ticketed event - a run of Disney on Ice, a proper cirque production, etc. Stampede likes pre-ticketed events as they include 'free-admission', even if the gate portion they take is less, it helps drive attendance.

If they build a new stadium, I don't think they can keep the old Saddledome around purely from a cost perspective. We are getting to the point where the roof can't even hold concerts anymore the day after it's snows 5-10cms. It's in need of major renovations and likely likely has some serious structural issues that will need to be considered in the not too distant future. We probably don't even know the real damage that flood of 2013 caused on the building either. Probably a lot of short-term solutions were done to get the building up and running again for the hockey season.

Will definitely suck for our skyline, but I just can't see economically it would make sense to keep the old building.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Complains about derailed thread while derailing it completely.

Who cares about his post history, he is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone.

True but we are all Flames fans discussing the merits of a new arena while this poster created an account here solely to denounce the project. Entitled to an opinion I suppose but this poster has little else to offer these forums with the exception of their disdain towards an arena project.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

So you signed up on a Calgary Flames messageboard solely to comment on the infrastructure of a new stadium? Sorry, not buying it. I'm calling this a troll account, because it is. You only have 39 posts in 3 years of membership at CP and 99.99% of them are in this thread. You don't post about the Flames, you don't post about anything else in the Calgary community, just on the evils of a new stadium.

A good debate on the subject can't be had with you taking the thread hostage with your own ideology. Given this account became rather active again around about the same time a poster with similar view points was given time in the "sin bin", i'd be willing to wager a decent chunk of change as to whose second account this is.

I could be wrong for sure on the above for sure, but this whole stadium debate is becoming cumbersome even to the people like me that aren't even fully on board with it. Nothing can be posted about details, planning, costs, etc. without it becoming completely derailed.

I'm not a Flames fan and I work for an architecture office in Calgary, so yes a significant urban development proposal is going to be more to my interest than the performance of the Flames - sue me. Why should I have any expectation you should run to a Wings forum and run your mouth about the on-ice performance of a team you don't follow YEARS in advance just to gain a bit of irrelevant legitimacy on an issue that has an actual, tangible effect on your civic life? It's unreasonable, this is an issue that goes far beyond just the STHs.

How is anything I've said considered 'taking the thread hostage', exactly? I've expressed desire for a more reasonable proposal than CalgaryNEXT in a more sensible location that offers a more fair, Winnipeg-esque division of funding. I've even argued the case FOR a new arena on the concerts issue, and I do that as someone who isn't interested in arena/stadium scale shows. Where you get the impression I've decried the notion of a new arena on its face I honestly don't know unless you're conflating that with my distaste for the (thoroughly-reported) corruption of FIFA and the IOC.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

True but we are all Flames fans discussing the merits of a new arena while this poster created an account here solely to denounce the project. Entitled to an opinion I suppose but this poster has little else to offer these forums with the exception of their disdain towards an arena project.

Again, where have I denounced 'the project'? If you're referencing CalgaryNEXT the denouncement has been almost universal and it's unfair to single me out, if you're referencing Victoria Park I've never expressed that in the first place.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

So you signed up on a Calgary Flames messageboard solely to comment on the infrastructure of a new stadium? Sorry, not buying it. I'm calling this a troll account, because it is. You only have 39 posts in 3 years of membership at CP and 99.99% of them are in this thread. You don't post about the Flames, you don't post about anything else in the Calgary community, just on the evils of a new stadium.

A good debate on the subject can't be had with you taking the thread hostage with your own ideology. Given this account became rather active again around about the same time a poster with similar view points was given time in the "sin bin", i'd be willing to wager a decent chunk of change as to whose second account this is.

I could be wrong for sure on the above for sure, but this whole stadium debate is becoming cumbersome even to the people like me that aren't even fully on board with it. Nothing can be posted about details, planning, costs, etc. without it becoming completely derailed.

Might want to check your math. 99.9% of his posts haven't been in this thread and how can you call him a troll?

His posts have been a lot more productive than yours.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

It's almost as if a massive civic infrastructure project has a far greater effect on far more people than the results of Flames regular-season games, crazy. Sorry, I'm not interested in getting scammed the way Edmonton did, if calling me a 'troll' for that unfathomably-outrageous belief makes you sleep better at night go nuts.

(I've posted in Foothills FC threads in the past, incidentally)

well...I could say the same for that really pretty Library we are paying for.