Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future...

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by polak

As much as it pains me to say it, the Oilers NAILED their arena design.

Modern and Sleek.

I'd love something that rivals that... A lot of the European rinks have some interesting designs that I wouldn't mind seeing blown up to NHL size...

Is that the Oilers new rink? If so, it's Star Wars themed. That's that thing that picks up C3PO and R2-D2 in the desert I think.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Is that the Oilers new rink? If so, it's Star Wars themed. That's that thing that picks up C3PO and R2-D2 in the desert I think.

Thats the wrong pic. I can't get the link to work... Weird.

Either way. Google some european rinks and stadiums. There are some awesome designs.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Is that the Oilers new rink? If so, it's Star Wars themed. That's that thing that picks up C3PO and R2-D2 in the desert I think.

No, I think this is the new Oilers arena:

Spoiler!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Well now we are into opinion territory. Polak just posted some pictures of Nationwide, and I can see the correlation he's making to the new structures down on the Stampede ground. For the record, I do not like the UND rink, but that likely has nothing to do with the type of "brick" used to be honest, because I think Nationwide looks pretty good using the same brick, it has to do with a lot more architecturally than the brick.

But fair, if you don't like that brick, and they go with that, entitled not to like it, I couldn't care less, and I don't for a second think that brick is "western" themed. Stick Nationwide arean in Toronto and no one calls it western themed, stick it here, and I guess folks will say it's a "western them rink" but it really isn't. Don't care much what brick they sue on the outside, some will like it, some won't, more concerned with the overall shape, design, layout, glass ratio etc....

Nothing to do with the brick, everything to do with the last line. Just an uninspired building, which is fine for small scale projects but not for something like an NHL arena. I think Nationwide is nice, a bit boring in some respects but overall not a bad looking building.

I like the UND arena for it's quality, but I don't think it would translate too a larger scale very well.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

That's assuming you can sell all of the seats, and again, remember, those seats you are adding are the furthest away seats, and may not give a good game experience. You get more revenue from those seats, but you also have to pay more cleaners, consession workers, ushers, etc, to work the extra seats. The seats you add bring in less revenue, but the cost of servicing them is the same as any other seat.

The big reason why those extra seats cost so much to build, is that the roof spans are bigger, the whole building becomes taller. More stairs are required to get people up higher, and the stairs have to be wider, because they must handle more people. More people wanting concessions and bathrooms means that more of those are going to be required, meaning more space down below is required to handle those things. More entry doors, more ticket checkers, etc.

Your calcuations say $150 million in ticket revenue alone, but it might cost an additional $100 million or more just to build those seats.

Doesn't the Bell Centre in Montreal have 21,000 seats? And from what I've heard, most of them, including the 'bad' seats have a very good view of the ice. Similar to what the MTS Centre has here in Winnipeg. The seat at the VERY top has a spectacular view. Obviously it is different considering there are only 15,000 seats in total, but I'd imagine you could create a pretty good vantage points.

Of course that has nothing to do with demand, and whether or not the Flames can fill those seats. I'd imagine they have run those numbers and know what they want.

As for the cost, if the total cost of the building is $500 million, isn't it a bit extreme to suggest that the cost of adding 2,000 extra seats would be $100 million? Unless you're talking about $100 million over 30 years. If so, I'd imagine that if you can create a return of $200 million....with ticket revenue and concession sales, wouldn't it be worth it?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Flames go with 18,000 seats and 3x the number of suites. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they go with 21,000 seats similar to the Bell Centre.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Fair enough.

I still think it's cool to have a saddle-shaped building in a western heritage city. That's all I'm saying. As Joborule posted earlier, I'd like to see another western theme if it adds to the new building.

But people have brought up good reasons not to go with the saddle shape again. Roof issues, monotony of building the exact same thing, having a unique arena for the next 30+ years that will stand the test of time.

I guess as an 'outsider' who has lived in BC for my whole life, I see the 'Dome and its shape (regardless of the name) as a unique identifier of the city and its heritage. There are so many plain looking arenas around the league and I just don't want to see Calgary turn into a plain bland vague city without an idiosyncratic feature to it.

For example, can you tell me what St. Louis' unique feature is? Phoenix? Minneapolis? Again, I just want to see Calgary keep it's heritage and all I see is Calgarians getting sick of the 'cowtown' stigma.

The thing is that unless you watched the Flames a lot, or knew the city, you likely wouldn't be able to answer that question about the Dome either (assuming the name doesn't tip you off).

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Alright, the more and more I look at the possibilities that Calgary has... I'm more on board with going all glassy.

I'm still holding strong onto Calgary maintaining their western heritage though, but my god, some of these European arenas are beautiful!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Doesn't the Bell Centre in Montreal have 21,000 seats? And from what I've heard, most of them, including the 'bad' seats have a very good view of the ice. Similar to what the MTS Centre has here in Winnipeg. The seat at the VERY top has a spectacular view. Obviously it is different considering there are only 15,000 seats in total, but I'd imagine you could create a pretty good vantage points.

Of course that has nothing to do with demand, and whether or not the Flames can fill those seats. I'd imagine they have run those numbers and know what they want.

As for the cost, if the total cost of the building is $500 million, isn't it a bit extreme to suggest that the cost of adding 2,000 extra seats would be $100 million? Unless you're talking about $100 million over 30 years. If so, I'd imagine that if you can create a return of $200 million....with ticket revenue and concession sales, wouldn't it be worth it?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Flames go with 18,000 seats and 3x the number of suites. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they go with 21,000 seats similar to the Bell Centre.

Not at all. Like he said before, you're talking about expanding the roof span, increasing the height, increasing the capacity of all of the smaller pieces of infrastructure etc. It would make sense to me that adding 2000 seats would jump costs up around that much.

[Azure]

Looking at ticket pricing for the Bell Centre, the lowest price for an adult is $42. I'd imagine those seats have the worst sightline.

With those pricing, an additional 3,000 seats, to bring the total from 18,000 which many are suggesting, to 21,000...which is what the Bell Centre has, brings in an additional $181 million over 30 years. Add the concession revenues, and you're looking at an easy $200 million MORE in revenue over 30 years. Probably averages out to $7 million per year. Now, I have no idea what the numbers are in terms of additional cost to the building the Flames will build, but the cost of the Bell Centre in 1996 was $270 million. According to my quick calculations, that is VERY close to the revenue generated by the additional 3,000 seats.

Considering of course that there are probably not a lot of seats available for $42, and the next price level is $60.

Just something to think about.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

Not at all. Like he said before, you're talking about expanding the roof span, increasing the height, increasing the capacity of all of the smaller pieces of infrastructure etc. It would make sense to me that adding 2000 seats would jump costs up around that much.

Could be.

But the Bell Centre has the 21,000 capacity, and it only cost $270 million to build. And that is in 'kick-back' Quebec.

I have no idea what the total cost of the new building in Calgary will be. For all we know you're are entirely correct.

I have a hard time believing that it couldn't pay off though. From what I recall, ticket demand has been pretty high in Calgary since the lockout in 2005.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Azure

Looking at ticket pricing for the Bell Centre, the lowest price for an adult is $42. I'd imagine those seats have the worst sightline.

With those pricing, an additional 3,000 seats, to bring the total from 18,000 which many are suggesting, to 21,000...which is what the Bell Centre has, brings in an additional $181 million over 30 years. Add the concession revenues, and you're looking at an easy $200 million MORE in revenue over 30 years. Probably averages out to $7 million per year. Now, I have no idea what the numbers are in terms of additional cost to the building the Flames will build, but the cost of the Bell Centre in 1996 was $270 million. According to my quick calculations, that is VERY close to the revenue generated by the additional 3,000 seats.

Considering of course that there are probably not a lot of seats available for $42, and the next price level is $60.

Just something to think about.

That's Montreal. Calgary needs the seat count down to keep the demand up.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

Someone posted and article a while back about Calgary's history and apparently cowboy stuff isn't even really our 'heritage', it was largely created by Weadick to sell tickets to his stampede. Calgary was always an uppity, less blue collar town, meaning the cowboy thing always has been fake. So the cowboy architecture (that the saddledome isn't really) is a faux homage to a faux heritage.

The monarchy/victorian period existed in London, Calgary cowboy times did not. Why not an homage to our Game of Thrones past, that also did not exist?

Maybe I am misremembering the article.

Or you could look at the fact that Calgary is in Southern Alberta which is an extremely large farming/ranching community, and has been for years.

The heritage is there.....but its not as big as people think it is.

At the end of the day, I think the Flames could come up with a lot cooler design.

[The Reverend]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Alright, the more and more I look at the possibilities that Calgary has... I'm more on board with going all glassy.

I'm still holding strong onto Calgary maintaining their western heritage though, but my god, some of these European arenas are beautiful!

I agree with the "glass" part. My main issue with brick and sandstone buildings in Calgary is that when a chinook hits and the roads turn to mud, it seems like EVERYTHING is dusty and depressing. The landscape just melts right into the dead grass, empty tree branches and all the horrible brick and sandstone buildings.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by nik-

That's Montreal. Calgary needs the seat count down to keep the demand up.

How do we know that the demand for single game tickets wouldn't be very high with 1,500 more seats?

Calgary hasn't had a problem selling out 19,289 since 2004.

City is growing, league is strong....and if the Flames remain a competitive team, I don't see why should have a problem with demand.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Azure

How do we know that the demand for single game tickets wouldn't be very high with 1,500 more seats?

Calgary hasn't had a problem selling out 19,289 since 2004.

City is growing, league is strong....and if the Flames remain a competitive team, I don't see why should have a problem with demand.

Haven't they? Been to a game lately? There are a lot of empty seats. That's the precursor to the "sellout" streak ending. Unless they just keep giving the tickets away or buying the remainder like they likely have been.

They don't want a 21000 seat arena with 16000 people in it if this dip continues.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Looking at ticket pricing for the Bell Centre, the lowest price for an adult is $42. I'd imagine those seats have the worst sightline.

With those pricing, an additional 3,000 seats, to bring the total from 18,000 which many are suggesting, to 21,000...which is what the Bell Centre has, brings in an additional $181 million over 30 years. Add the concession revenues, and you're looking at an easy $200 million MORE in revenue over 30 years. Probably averages out to $7 million per year. Now, I have no idea what the numbers are in terms of additional cost to the building the Flames will build, but the cost of the Bell Centre in 1996 was $270 million. According to my quick calculations, that is VERY close to the revenue generated by the additional 3,000 seats.

Considering of course that there are probably not a lot of seats available for $42, and the next price level is $60.

Just something to think about.

The whole scenario presumes that there is demand that is sufficient to not only fill those seats, but to keep enough people out to support season ticket sales and price levels. I don't think Calgary and Montreal are comparable in that respect.

[Bigtime]

It's been said a hundred times in this thread, give me something nice and modern and daring and stay the heck away from faux-historic and Stampitecture.

I also believe location choice number one will be north of 12th avenue on the Remington lands east of arriVa. It will tie in perfectly with the East Village and the eventual SELRT running right next to it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'll be surpised if capacity actually rises in a new building. Wouldn't be shocked if a new building was in the 17,500 range. You have to remember Calgary is, outside maybe Toronto, pretty much the corporate capital of Canada. Luxury boxes are worth way, way more than seats, and I'm guessing that it wouldn't be hard in this city to fill every luxury box. Whatever the new building is, more luxury boxes is the primary driver, not more seats.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Some nice ones:

Barclay's Centre in Brooklyn. I love the shape, but not too sure what to think about the wood strips yet.

Spoiler!

Copenhagen Arena Proposal:

Spoiler!

Arena Zagreb in Croatia:

Spoiler!

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by fotze

Someone posted and article a while back about Calgary's history and apparently cowboy stuff isn't even really our 'heritage', it was largely created by Weadick to sell tickets to his stampede. Calgary was always an uppity, less blue collar town, meaning the cowboy thing always has been fake. So the cowboy architecture (that the saddledome isn't really) is a faux homage to a faux heritage.

The monarchy/victorian period existed in London, Calgary cowboy times did not. Why not an homage to our Game of Thrones past, that also did not exist?

Maybe I am misremembering the article.

The saddlethrone.

Well even if that were true, the fact that Weadick created that theme and it happened a 100 years ago would make it part of our history. The history of cities as young as Calgary aren't going to go back as far as they do in London, no where near as close, but doesn't change the fact that it's part of the history.

But as someone else pointed out, Ranching and Farming is absolutely a part of Southern Alberta's history, not sure how that's deniable. If Weadick was the first to potentially over emphasize it for profit 100 years ago, so be it, doesn't stop it from being true, and if over the past 100 years the city has chosen to embrace it as the culture and and create the Stampede into what it is today, that on it's own warrants merit as history and culture of this city.