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

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Fair enough, but how secretive in the media is it? We are speculating about it on here, and so is some of the media. RM just wrote an article about it.

Obviously not that secretive since rumours of a new stadium being built along with a new arena has been ongoing for the past several months. The only questions at this point is when is it gonna be built and the scale of this project. (Is it going to be done at a high quality like the new Winnipeg stadium, or cheaply done like the new Hamilton stadium)

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

$100 million to upgrade McMahon could make a stadium every bit as nice as that.

Sure if the Flames wanted to spend $100 million to fix up the university's building. Maybe I'll see if they'll build my basement for me too.

[Table 5]

Yeah, the new Hamilton stadium barely looks like an upgrade on what McMahon offers now. If this is what a new stadium would bring, don't even bother wasting your time.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Sure if the Flames wanted to spend $100 million to fix up the university's building. Maybe I'll see if they'll build my basement for me too.

I think that's a point that "new stadium" detractors keep ignoring. The Stamps are playing in a stadium that they don't own.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, the new Hamilton stadium barely looks like an upgrade on what McMahon offers now. If this is what a new stadium would bring, don't even bother wasting your time.

I was involved in the pursuit of that Hamilton project, and I gotta say... some of the other proposed concepts in the competition stage were much more interesting.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

I was involved in the pursuit of that Hamilton project, and I gotta say... some of the other proposed concepts in the competition stage were much more interesting.

And much more expensive I assume

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, the new Hamilton stadium barely looks like an upgrade on what McMahon offers now. If this is what a new stadium would bring, don't even bother wasting your time.

1. Have field level interact with pedestrian level
2. Add clunky temporary fence to block sight lines
3. .... Profit?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Muta

I was involved in the pursuit of that Hamilton project, and I gotta say... some of the other proposed concepts in the competition stage were much more interesting.

I couldn't see them being any worse. I mean this truly does look like a "Texas High School" level stadium. I guess this is what $150 million gets you (although for only 50M more, you can get what Winnipeg is building).

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

And much more expensive I assume

No, actually.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think that's a point that "new stadium" detractors keep ignoring. The Stamps are playing in a stadium that they don't own.

That's certainly an issue, and I've placed the caveat of the University wanting to play ball on my my position of upgrade vs. new stadium. I would expect any upgrade done to McMahon to include either a large financial commitment from the U of C, or a long term lease arrangement that makes it worthwhile for Flames ownership to take on the cost.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

No, actually.

Interesting, any thoughts on why they went with the 'less interesting' option? Perhaps more interesting didn't mean more functional.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

Interesting, any thoughts on why they went with the 'less interesting' option? Perhaps more interesting didn't mean more functional.

Trust me... the decision process for these types of large-scale projects is extremely complicated, with many, many stakeholders involved. There's more than just design that weighs in.

If I 100% knew the answer to your question, I would charge through the f'n roof for my services.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

Trust me... the decision process for these types of large-scale projects is extremely complicated, with many, many stakeholders involved. There's more than just design that weighs in.

If I 100% knew the answer to your question, I would charge through the f'n roof for my services.

Oh yeah I get that, just wondering if there was anything big that made them steer away from other options.

I don't think that's the worst stadium, it looks pretty functional, but it's definitely not exciting. The thing is that a lot of that 'exciting' stuff ends up being things that don't add to the user experience. For instance, a facade wrapped around the outside of the stands would look great there, but it would be purely cosmetic and wouldn't be cheap.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, the new Hamilton stadium barely looks like an upgrade on what McMahon offers now. If this is what a new stadium would bring, don't even bother wasting your time.

You would think Hamilton would be the one place that would absolutely push the stands a little further back from the field and have the stands at a bigger angle (more over top of the action)

[Muta]

One thing I can tell you from my experience is that most proposed buildings, across the world, are way more 'exciting' in the initial design stages that what they generally turn out to be. Very rarely do you get the budget you need to do something REALLY special.

Good designers are essential to maximizing the quality of the product. Most projects usually get budgets - and therefore results - that are below initial expectations when its finally complete.

If you're given $13,000 to work with - you client shouldn't expect a Ferrari with that money. A good designer, however, can use that $13k to make something that looks and feels like more.

At the end of the day, however.... money talks. It always will.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Muta

Trust me... the decision process for these types of large-scale projects is extremely complicated, with many, many stakeholders involved. There's more than just design that weighs in.

If I 100% knew the answer to your question, I would charge through the f'n roof for my services.

My theory is that it's a product of committee-think. The problem with architectural competitions isn't that the submissions are all bland, it's that the committees choose bland submissions. In Calgary, we saw it with the National Music Centre and (in particular) the St. Patrick's Island Bridge.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, the new Hamilton stadium barely looks like an upgrade on what McMahon offers now. If this is what a new stadium would bring, don't even bother wasting your time.

How are you determining that from the picture? Are you saying that because it's a two sided stadium with no endzone seating and no overhang, like McMahon is now? Upgrading the stadium or getting a new stadium doesn't mean the basic design has to change. The Stamps don't need to upgrade McMahon (if they do at all) because the concept of a two sided grandstand needs to change for the CFL, they don't need to add more seats.

They need to upgrade the guts of the stadium, bathroom, concessions, walkways, quality of the seats in the stands and potentially the addition of more box seating and media facilities. They don't need to upgrade because they need to move to a bigger more elaborate facility.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by SebC

My theory is that it's a product of committee-think. The problem with architectural competitions isn't that the submissions are all bland, it's that the committees choose bland submissions. In Calgary, we saw it with the National Music Centre and (in particular) the St. Patrick's Island Bridge.

Bang on. But... it's important to know that when a 'bland' architectural submission is selected, it's usually not a round-table consensus. There's lots of hands in the cookie jar, which goes back to my point. Everyone has their opinion.

Plus, architectural excellence is not necessarily always the highest priority on a committee's mind. Unfortunate, but sometimes the most powerful person on the committee holds all the cards, which can play against your favour (friends with other designers, preference for sub-standard and outdated architecture, favours, etc.). I've seen that FAR TOO OFTEN.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by SebC

My theory is that it's a product of committee-think. The problem with architectural competitions isn't that the submissions are all bland, it's that the committees choose bland submissions. In Calgary, we saw it with the National Music Centre and (in particular) the St. Patrick's Island Bridge.

Really? Maybe I saw the wrong renderings, but that place looks like it is going to be pretty spectacular. I'd be pretty curious to see the non-bland plans if that's the case.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Really? Maybe I saw the wrong renderings, but that place looks like it is going to be pretty spectacular. I'd be pretty curious to see the non-bland plans if that's the case.

Well, the concept for it has improved since it won the competition, however let's just say I prefered



to



You can see all the finalists here.

Don't get me wrong, it'll still be a very cool project, but the original Allied Works proposal was pretty uninspired.