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

[steveo]

I went to the Staples Center in May during the playoff series where the Kings played the Sharks . During the intermission you could actually go to the washroom, get food, drinks and make it back to your seat and still have time before the period starts. It was amazing. (You could also see everything going on no matter where you sat too.) I wouldn't even try that at the Saddledome. You'd miss half the period, that's with you leaving your seat with 5 minutes left in the period.

[JD]

You can do all that stuff at the Saddledome too. I've had season tickets for a few years and you can figure out a routine that gets you through all the hoops and still have time to bs a bit. But that's the problem, you have to go through a learning process to figure out when the washroom line is optimal, what concession stands are reasonable, and how to navigate best back to your seat.

One thing that surprises me is that people always point to the shark tank as something to look up to. I was there, and I thought there was nothing about it that was better than the Saddledome. It had concrete concourses and crowded washrooms too. Nothing special at all. I sat in the upper bowl, cheap seats. Is it possibly people had a different experience because they were in nicer seats and had access to a different concourse? Kind of like in the Saddledome, you can have that different experience in the Avison Young section (or whatever they call it now)?

[EYE_Overstand]

Originally Posted by JD

You can do all that stuff at the Saddledome too. I've had season tickets for a few years and you can figure out a routine that gets you through all the hoops and still have time to bs a bit. But that's the problem, you have to go through a learning process to figure out when the washroom line is optimal, what concession stands are reasonable, and how to navigate best back to your seat.

One thing that surprises me is that people always point to the shark tank as something to look up to. I was there, and I thought there was nothing about it that was better than the Saddledome. It had concrete concourses and crowded washrooms too. Nothing special at all. I sat in the upper bowl, cheap seats. Is it possibly people had a different experience because they were in nicer seats and had access to a different concourse? Kind of like in the Saddledome, you can have that different experience in the Avison Young section (or whatever they call it now)?

In staples and united I sat in the "waiter" seats which is the second level (out of 3) and they had so many bathrooms everywhere and the concessions and bars were super quick and easy.

I've also had season tickets for a number of years and I agree that their are certain bathrooms that have huge lines but move faster because the number of urinals etc... But that shouldn't be the case (as you note about developing an "intermission" system)

[strombad]

Yeah, sorry. If you have to be a season ticket holder for YEARS and develop a method just to be able to go to the bathroom in a reasonable amount of time, that means the Saddledome is pretty horrid.

[Lanny_McDonald]

I will be shocked if the Flames get anything going by the end of the decade. Too many guys with real strong opinions that will create decision gridlock. Then you have King involved, who will want to please everyone. Just not a good scenario for a project of this magnitude. Of course, not that I have said this, you can fully expect an announcement of a ground breaking next week!

[Muta]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I prefer the exterior look of the saddledome to any of the boring cookie cutter arenas in the league.

Gross.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by EYE_Overstand

The only stadium that is a bigger dump then the dome is Wrigley field.

O.Co/Oakland Coliseum wins the "dumpiest stadium" award by a mile - crappy seats, multi-purpose, sewer backups, dungeon concourse, etc. Prior to Mt. Davis being built at least it had some views of the Oakland Hills. At least Wrigley can claim is 100 years old (in desperate need of renos/upgrades).

I was firmly in the "the Saddledome is fine; I don't understand why the Flames need a new arena" for years... then I went to games in San Jose, LA, Tampa and Chicago. I think the sight lines at the 'Dome are great. The concourse (width, largely single level, lack of windows, lack of finished look - see all concrete), bathrooms, number of suites, number of exits, and inability to host all concerts is a huge issue that impacts all levels of users (from corporate suites to occasional press-level goers). The Flames need a new arena.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by macrov

That's an average of 44 years. For the flames that would give us another 13 years.

Give it another year before anything is released, 2 years worth of fighting over financing (because billionaires or not, there's no way the Flames will just pay for it all and call it a day), and 2-3 years to build the thing, and we're halfway to your 13.

Sooner or later, something will have to be done. Either it will need a massive renovation or a new arena built. But doing nothing now just delays the inevitable. Might as well get some enjoyment out of it sooner, rather than later.

And yeah, it sure would be nice to be able to go take a leak without having to devise some extensive battle plan. I usually try not to even drink at the dome so I don't have to put up with that whole shatshow.

When you're in your seat at the Dome, I think the experience is just fine. The problems arise as soon as you get out of your seat.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by macrov

What's the life of a pro-sports arena? 40-60 years on average? The dome was built in 1983...its only been 31 years. As much as we'd all love a new arena, its a giant waste of money.

And to all the people complaining it will be the oldest in the league before they replace it...isn't that a good sign? A sign that we actually used the dome to the end of its useful life? That money wasn't wasted.

What exactly is wrong with the dome that justifies $400 million? I don't get it. I can't believe I'm the only one...

Off the top of my head is the reasons why Flames owners want a new arena.

- Accommodate all types of big act concerts. Lost revenue is now gained revenue.
- More lower bowl seats. Increase of revenue. (Think Flames have the smallest one in the league)
- More and better luxury suites. Increase revenue.
- Implementation of better/more club areas. Increase revenue.
- Bigger/more concourses. Improves efficiency and increases revenue.
- New equals flashy which equals pricy which people are willing to pay. You get the idea.

Most of these mean more costs to the fans, but this is a business after all. Supply and demand.

Aside from direct consumers costs, there's others that they can do with a new venue.

- Build new arena with new football stadium, which rumours indicate.
- Training/practice facility built with arena.
- Ownership of land means they can build hotels, offices, retail, convention space around the arena.
- Gain parking revenue, which they currently don't on Stampede land.
- Negate flood impact if possible.

Those are just off the top of my head. The owners may have more reasons of why they want a new arena. But either way, a lot has changed in 30 years, and the new arenas show just how outdated, and limited the Saddledome is for the owners, and fans.

[Tyler]

Nice recap Jobo

[BurningSteel]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Give it another year before anything is released, 2 years worth of fighting over financing (because billionaires or not, there's no way the Flames will just pay for it all and call it a day), and 2-3 years to build the thing, and we're halfway to your 13.

I dont understand why they cany build their own building on their own dime? At the end of the day it is their building afterall

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Joborule

- Accommodate all types of big act concerts. Lost revenue is now gained revenue.

Not just big concerts. The small/medium sized shows are big revenue generators too.

Right now, Calgary really doesn't have a good concert venue in the 3000-8000 range. The Jubilee is just under 3000, and the Jack Singer is even smaller than that. The Corral can handle that size of crowd, but it's 60 years-old and has horrible acoustics. Anything under 10,000 in the Saddledome feels deserted.

Plus, a lot of concerts aren't really designed for a large arena setting.

With the new arenas, like the ACC, Bell Centre, and MTS Centre, they can adjust the size of the venue down to accommodate these smaller shows. Since it opened, the MTS Centre has been one of the busiest concert venues in Canada, and it's all the small/medium sized shows that make the big difference for them.

Based on King's comments on the animation, the ability to downsize into a theatre mode is going to be a big part of the new arena's design. Even if we don't see the full movable ceiling design, we'll almost certainly see some variation of a shrinkable venue.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by BurningSteel

I dont understand why they cany build their own building on their own dime? At the end of the day it is their building afterall

Because the precedent is that "it's a space that the public can share and enjoy", and therefore is something the public should help pay for. If it worked before, and still works in other places, you know they're going to try.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by BurningSteel

I dont understand why they cany build their own building on their own dime? At the end of the day it is their building afterall

Because very few billion dollar projects are built without ANY government money.

If the Flames are going to help the City/province revitalize an area of the City with much needed social institutions, they should receive some funding IMO

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Off the top of my head is the reasons why Flames owners want a new arena...

Those are just off the top of my head. The owners may have more reasons of why they want a new arena. But either way, a lot has changed in 30 years, and the new arenas show just how outdated, and limited the Saddledome is for the owners, and fans.

Even if you're a Flames fan who never goes to see the team play live, the crappy old arena will make it harder for the team to compete. Payrolls may keep rising, and with limited revenue (relative to new arenas) the Flames could find themselves unable to play with the big boys. Then there's the matter of player facilities. Having the worst dressing room, fitness, etc. facilities in the league will eventually impact our ability to attract free agents (if it isn't already).

Originally Posted by BurningSteel

I dont understand why they cany build their own building on their own dime? At the end of the day it is their building afterall

I agree. Personally, I have a real problem with the way the titans of business manage to socialize risk and privatize profits. And while these arenas used to be public facilities used by most citizens, these days the offerings on-hand, whether it's the Flames or a Lady Gaga show at $200 ticket, are out of reach for most citizens. It's hard to make a case why a retired couple living on a fixed income in Ramsay should have to pay property taxes to subsidize an entertainment complex used by the most affluent Calgarians.

But at the end of the day, these facilities usually don't get built unless there's some sort of public funding. I'd be onboard with the city footing the bill for the infrastructure needs (road upgrades, interchanges, etc.). But the building itself should be paid for by the billionaires who own the team and will pocket all the profits from the facility. If that's not a viable plan financially, then you have to wonder how the billionaires who own NHL franchises manage the rest of their businesses. Or maybe they're accustomed to public subsidies in their day jobs as well.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by macrov

For nhl teams...

Boston Garden 1928-1995
Buffalo: 1940-1996
Detroit 1927-1979
Montreal forum: 1926-1996
Maple leaf gardens: 1931-1999
Devils: 1982-2007
MSG: 1925-1968
Flyers: 1967-1996
Penguins: 1961-2010
Capitals: 1973-1997
Chicago: 1929-1994
St Louis: 1929-1994
Jets: 1999-2011
Dallas: 1980-2001
LA: 1967-1999
Vancouver: 1967-1995

That's an average of 44 years. For the flames that would give us another 13 years.

This isn't really an average age of an arena, this better illustrates the decade that "last gen" arenas became obsolete. There's a reason the Saddledome underwent a major renovation in the mid-90s despite only being 12 years old.

[Phanuthier]

I'm not saying the Flames shouldn't get a new arena (I get the whole bit about more box seats, more lower bowl seating, etc) but...

Originally Posted by irrevocable

Nashville and San Jose ruined it for me.

Originally Posted by JD

One thing that surprises me is that people always point to the shark tank as something to look up to. I was there, and I thought there was nothing about it that was better than the Saddledome. It had concrete concourses and crowded washrooms too. Nothing special at all. I sat in the upper bowl, cheap seats. Is it possibly people had a different experience because they were in nicer seats and had access to a different concourse? Kind of like in the Saddledome, you can have that different experience in the Avison Young section (or whatever they call it now)?

Agree with JD here. I go to the Shark Tank more then the Dome these days, and while it is nicer, I honestly can't say that - as a fan (maybe not a player/Iginla) it didn't change my world or open my eyes and all that stuff. It was nicer, for sure..... but maybe other people might be more influenced by the colour of their seats or a hardwood floor trimming to arm rest for their hockey seats than me.

Bathrooms are better though

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I'but maybe other people might be more influenced by the colour of their seats or a hardwood floor trimming to arm rest for their hockey seats than me.

You're such a purist.

The SAP Center is also 21 years old (10 years younger than the Saddledome). So it's not "new age" like some of the brand new arenas, but it's a good example of what 10 years difference can do. It wasn't the best arena I have been to but it certainly is leaps and bounds better than the Saddledome.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by BurningSteel

I dont understand why they cany build their own building on their own dime? At the end of the day it is their building afterall

Well of course they can, and should, build it on their own dime, but like every other organization, they will try really really hard not to. Even if they are the ones putting up the bill for the actual construction, at the very least they will ask for some form of special treatment that is worth millions... infrastructure changes, land swaps, favorable tax-structure etc.

Has there been one stadium built in North American entirely with private funds and no special favors? If there has, I haven't heard about it.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

You're such a purist.

The SAP Center is also 21 years old (10 years younger than the Saddledome). So it's not "new age" like some of the brand new arenas, but it's a good example of what 10 years difference can do. It wasn't the best arena I have been to but it certainly is leaps and bounds better than the Saddledome.

Thanks?

Again though, I do think a new arena makes sense since it takes years to build, and more boxex/lower bowl seats = revenue....