[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Erick Estrada]

You guys make is sound like McMahon stadium is a great experience and a new up to date facility with retractable seats would be somehow a downgrade. It's laughable the lame excuses some people will come up with to justify their blind hate for something. Yeah a new stadium where you can get a beer at halftime without missing the opening of the 2nd half, not be forced to use the washroom during the game because the horrendous lineups at half time, get an actual seat not a cold hard bleacher, a facility that a handicapped person could attend, etc. would be a terrible thing because of retractable seats.

[Joborule]

I'll admit I'm skeptical about the Field House/Stadium integration. I can't see how they'll intend to build a $200M facility, that is "field house first", without it looking extremely cheap, and not much different from McMahon in regards of in game atmosphere and experience. At least with McMahon you get to enjoy the outdoor summer games although the seats and concourse may be crappy. In fact, the layout foundation of McMahon itself is solid; just that everything about it has to be renovated to modern standards.

From the Flames owners side, it doesn't make sense for them to invest money most of their money into building a new football stadium since every other stadium around the country has been built via government money. The CFL has establish itself as a Canadian identity, and because of that governments have seen the value of contributing in keeping the CFL team in their community while allow the team to increase their profits to maintain long term viability. The Flames are already contributing money to the Flames new venue, and that team has more integration with the community than the Stamps do. So I can see why they want the Stamps new facility to be built with the money the city was already intending to spend in the first place.

I feel though the compromise of settling with a multiple configuration venue that would drastically affect the layout is a bit too much; leaving not much gained. The idea is to have seating for a track and field layout, so for football/soccer games is there going to be retractable/extendable seats that'll bring it closer to the sidelines? Or is it going to be similar to commonwealth Stadium in that the seats go up to the track, and then there's seperation from there? The ladder doesn't seem ideal since modern design standards for major outdoor venues is to bring the fans as close to the action as possible. Seeing the layout of the track lanes when watching the action of the field is not satisfying that.

I guess my main concern is just how well can they hide the fact that it's actually a field house rather than a football stadium during those games? If the Stamps are going to move - into an enclosed stadium at that; losing the outdoor summer games appeal - it should feel like a significant upgrade, and be in the realm of one of the best stadiums in the CFL. The concourse experience may be better, but if you can see areas where the foundations holding up the seats are visible, or seats folded in and pressed up against the wall on TV or from your own seat, then did the Stamps really improve in venue quality, or just made a lateral movement at best?

I'm really interested to see how the actual designs turn out. It could turn out alright. But if not, maybe it would be better off to try to get the city to build (or contribute a fair amount into) a new football stadium, or invest into spending the money required to significantly renovate McMahon Stadium, on top of building their own Fieldhouse.

As posed previously, I'm hoping for more this:

Spoiler!

Than this:

Spoiler!

There's a reason teams don't do this anymore.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You guys make is sound like McMahon stadium is a great experience and a new up to date facility with retractable seats would be somehow a downgrade. It's laughable the lame excuses some people will come up with to justify their blind hate for something. Yeah a new stadium where you can get a beer at halftime without missing the opening of the 2nd half, not be forced to use the washroom during the game because the horrendous lineups at half time, get an actual seat not a cold hard bleacher, a facility that a handicapped person could attend, etc. would be a terrible thing because of retractable seats.

CFL fans have always had a few screws loose. McMahon is horrible and anything would be an upgrade.

[Scary Eloranta]

I think most of the negativity around the stadium plan is due to the horrible artist concepts, especially the lower side near the river. Have to agree that looks real bad and wish they would have thought that through a bit better. Maybe change the orientation or get special permission form the city to go higher? I don't see how it could work the way it is in those ugly ass drawings. Certainly couldn't have a Grey Cup in that - it doesn't even look even expandable. I know the Stamps are more of an after thought and only play 9-10 dates but if you're gonna build it, at least do it right.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

I think most of the negativity around the stadium plan is due to the horrible artist concepts, especially the lower side near the river. Have to agree that looks real bad and wish they would have thought that through a bit better. Maybe change the orientation or get special permission form the city to go higher? I don't see how it could work the way it is in those ugly ass drawings. Certainly couldn't have a Grey Cup in that - it doesn't even look even expandable. I know the Stamps are more of an after thought and only play 9-10 dates but if you're gonna build it, at least do it right.

I think there are very few people who are pro-CalgaryNext but have beefs with the design that make them negative.
I think all the negativity surrounds a) financing model, b) overall cost (and remediation) and c) infrastructure issues (nearby roadways & parking)

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I think there are very few people who are pro-CalgaryNext but have beefs with the design that make them negative.
I think all the negativity surrounds a) financing model, b) overall cost (and remediation) and c) infrastructure issues (nearby roadways & parking)

So basically everything sucks?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by joborule

I feel though the compromise of settling with a multiple configuration venue that would drastically affect the layout is a bit too much; leaving not much gained. The idea is to have seating for a track and field layout, so for football/soccer games is there going to be retractable/extendable seats that'll bring it closer to the sidelines? Or is it going to be similar to commonwealth stadium in that the seats go up to the track, and then there's separation from there? The later doesn't seem ideal since modern design standards for major outdoor venues is to bring the fans as close to the action as possible. Seeing the layout of the track lanes when watching the action of the field is not satisfying that.

I guess my main concern is just how well can they hide the fact that it's actually a field house rather than a football stadium during those games? If the stamps are going to move - into an enclosed stadium at that; losing the outdoor summer games appeal - it should feel like a significant upgrade, and be in the realm of one of the best stadiums in the cfl. The concourse experience may be better, but if you can see areas where the foundations holding up the seats are visible, or seats folded in and pressed up against the wall on tv or from your own seat, then did the stamps really improve in venue quality, or just made a lateral movement at best?

The indoor rendering from this article doesn't look too bad. There are very few seats available for track and field events from that angle though. Perhaps there could be seating that works with the slanted roof concept to rectify this?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I think there are very few people who are pro-CalgaryNext but have beefs with the design that make them negative.
I think all the negativity surrounds a) financing model, b) overall cost (and remediation) and c) infrastructure issues (nearby roadways & parking)

The fact that parking is in any way a detraction simply shows how out of touch Calgarians are. Show me any downtown (I mean downtown not outside downtown) north American facility that has a large parking lot.

[ken0042]

Why "not outside downtown." The Calgary Next project is planned to be built outside of downtown.

I work on the western most edge of downtown, and it's a 2 km walk from my office to where this is planned.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Reaper

The indoor rendering from this article doesn't look too bad. There are very few seats available for track and field events from that angle though. Perhaps there could be seating that works with the slanted roof concept to rectify this?

The renderings are not final and are just for demonstration purposes.

I think this was a huge mistake of KK's not to show the final renderings and just show concepts

[heep223]

Originally Posted by zztim81

As far as the NDP government, I certainly hope there is a new cancer treatment facility in Calgary before a single dollar of infrastructure money is put into Calgary next.

Funding dollars are in different buckets, for healthcare, for transpo, for social services, etc. Dollars that would be allocated to Calgary Next would not be at the expense of a health care initiative.

[polak]

Yeah the concepts make it look like a glorified YMCA.

[Jimmy Stang]

If I'm not mistaken, the renderings are all just placeholders, are they not? There haven't been any actual designs done on what the buildings themselves would look like (or how they would function). On the risk of sounding like Mr. King itself, this is still at the "concept" and "vision" stage, and the stadium and rink haven't actually been designed yet.

It just seems a bit premature to say "the field house looks like crap" because what we are seeing is a generic rendering with a Stamps logo pasted onto it.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

If I'm not mistaken, the renderings are all just placeholders, are they not? There haven't been any actual designs done on what the buildings themselves would look like (or how they would function). On the risk of sounding like Mr. King itself, this is still at the "concept" and "vision" stage, and the stadium and rink haven't actually been designed yet.

It just seems a bit premature to say "the field house looks like crap" because what we are seeing is a generic rendering with a Stamps logo pasted onto it.

Well how can they realistically say this project will cost $890MM. But we actually have no clue what the rink, stadium or field house will look like.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Tyler

I think this was a huge mistake of KK's not to show the final renderings and just show concepts

Definitely a salesmanship fail. Everyone knows that when you have little substance, you try to mask it with sizzle. Instead, King gave us a barely thought out concept AND amateurish renderings and presentation. He could have had Calgarians excited about a grand vision....instead there was nothing much to look at, so people honed in on the financials and logistics.

With so much at stake (and so much time to work with), they needed to go all out on presentation. Do an East-Village like flyover video, high quality renderings etc. Well executed concepts get people excited and talking, and looking for ways to find solutions.

I think the whole proposal is a joke that has no chance in hell of ever coming to fruition as-is, but the Flames did themselves a huge disservice in how they rolled it out.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Tyler

The renderings are not final and are just for demonstration purposes.

I think this was a huge mistake of KK's not to show the final renderings and just show concepts

I know they weren't final. I just wanted to show that a field house with retractable seating could actually look decent.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I think there are very few people who are pro-CalgaryNext but have beefs with the design that make them negative.
I think all the negativity surrounds a) financing model, b) overall cost (and remediation) and c) infrastructure issues (nearby roadways & parking)

I think the negativity is mostly about financing and the other complaints (design/infrastructure/etc.) are often made by anti-public financing people to bolster the position.

Because the other complaints are about stuff which is (a) only conceptual at best (b) solvable over time or (c) not improved by other locations.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Definitely a salesmanship fail. Everyone knows that when you have little substance, you try to mask it with sizzle. Instead, King gave us a barely thought out concept AND amateurish renderings and presentation. He could have had Calgarians excited about a grand vision....instead there was nothing much to look at, so people honed in on the financials and logistics.

With so much at stake (and so much time to work with), they needed to go all out on presentation. Do an East-Village like flyover video, high quality renderings etc. Well executed concepts get people excited and talking, and looking for ways to find solutions.

I think the whole proposal is a joke that has no chance in hell of ever coming to fruition as-is, but the Flames did themselves a huge disservice in how they rolled it out.

Even details like calling the ticket levy a "ticket tax" was a huge mistake. They should have been trumpeting that user pay portion as much as possible, knowing full well that the public aren't keen on tax dollars being used. Semantics, sure, but why even mention the T-word on a portion that is 100% user pay?

It gave the inaccurate perception that even more of it was taxpayer funded, and the media fuelled this by misreporting it initially.

[PostandIn]

It's completely unhelpful and contradictory when KK says, before the Calgary NEXT announcement, "if everyone could just see the models and plans sitting on my desk they'd be as blown away as I am!" and then rolls out vague, concept drawings and says "well, really we haven't really tacked down many of the details". As much as we all agree Edmonton is no good, when the deal was finally announced, it did not take long for the Katz Group to get some really cool renderings of the actual building on the street.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Even details like calling the ticket levy a "ticket tax" was a huge mistake. They should have been trumpeting that user pay portion as much as possible, knowing full well that the public aren't keen on tax dollars being used. Semantics, sure, but why even mention the T-word on a portion that is 100% user pay?

It gave the inaccurate perception that even more of it was taxpayer funded, and the media fuelled this by misreporting it initially.

To take it a step further, its not even a levy or a user pay fee. It's not like the Flames would lower ticket prices if there were no "ticket tax". Ticket prices would remain the same. All a "ticket tax" is is the Flames slicing off and securitizing a portion of future revenues. It's effectively a tax levied against the owners.

You are right though...I have no idea why the term ticket tax is used around so many arena financings. Such a dumb and inflammatory term.