[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[CroFlames]

r/TooAfraidToAsk

Why do stadiums/arenas only last 35 years or so, whereas other types of big buildings last much longer?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

r/TooAfraidToAsk

Why do stadiums/arenas only last 35 years or so, whereas other types of big buildings last much longer?

Other buildings get substantial renos in that time frame - often the shell is the only thing left unchanged. Arena renos tend to be cosmetic only. Plus the technology for performances and sports gets better. And the buildings generally take a lot more abuse than, say, an office building.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I never did really understand why fan bases clamor for new arenas/stadiums. You just pay more money for the exact same thing. It never made much sense for me.

People want a better fan experience. For one thing a new arena would mean no more grid lock that you experience in the Saddledome concourse. More restaurants and food choices. More washrooms and better quality seats.

For concerts it means more acts coming to Calgary and better acoustics.

The downside would mean the end of the cheap upper lodge seating.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Other buildings get substantial renos in that time frame - often the shell is the only thing left unchanged. Arena renos tend to be cosmetic only. Plus the technology for performances and sports gets better. And the buildings generally take a lot more abuse than, say, an office building.

and the desire for owners to increase the revenue stream.
for example, how many luxury boxes were in arenas 40 years ago compared to now?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

and the desire for owners to increase the revenue stream.
for example, how many luxury boxes were in arenas 40 years ago compared to now?

They need to increase the revenue stream to keep up with rising costs such as player salaries.

As for luxury boxes, player salaries weren't out of control 40 years ago as they are today.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

and the desire for owners to increase the revenue stream.
for example, how many luxury boxes were in arenas 40 years ago compared to now?

This.

It’s more the economics of professional sports has changed and basic interior renovations do not address the issue. Basic interior renovations have addressed changes in office buildings (server rooms, cubicles, then open floor spaces, etc...)

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by Dion

People want a better fan experience. For one thing a new arena would mean no more grid lock that you experience in the Saddledome concourse.

CSEC Marketing - "These new concourses are so wide, we can park six ten Dodge trucks in them!"

[Erick Estrada]

Maybe not a popular take but I've never been a fan of the Saddledome. Especially today it's an eyesore. It's simply an old and outdated design that hasn't aged well which is why I hope it's demolished. Inside obviously the concourse is horrible as this was something that was a mistake from day one even before the renos as it's never been large enough to support a full building. The sightlines are generally pretty good but one thing I always felt sitting in the upper seats is the feeling of isolation not being able to see the other side of the arena as there's the feeling of being in a dark, sequestered area of the arena and that takes away from the experience when celebrating goals, etc. Most of the other complaints are pretty standards food, bathrooms, etc but I've just never liked the sagging roof and will be happy to see this facility gone.

[ricosuave]

Originally Posted by Dion

The downside would mean the end of the cheap upper lodge seating.

Ah, the nosebleeds... I'll miss ya!

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Maybe not a popular take but I've never been a fan of the Saddledome. Especially today it's an eyesore. It's simply an old and outdated design that hasn't aged well which is why I hope it's demolished. Inside obviously the concourse is horrible as this was something that was a mistake from day one even before the renos as it's never been large enough to support a full building. The sightlines are generally pretty good but one thing I always felt sitting in the upper seats is the feeling of isolation not being able to see the other side of the arena as there's the feeling of being in a dark, sequestered area of the arena and that takes away from the experience when celebrating goals, etc. Most of the other complaints are pretty standards food, bathrooms, etc but I've just never liked the sagging roof and will be happy to see this facility gone.

Yeah nothing wrong with the sightlines but you certainly feel distant from the ice. Anyone that has gone to the rinks that go up more vertically would agree that it creates a much better energy and experience.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Yeah nothing wrong with the sightlines but you certainly feel distant from the ice. Anyone that has gone to the rinks that go up more vertically would agree that it creates a much better energy and experience.

I sat in the back of the ACC (whatever’s it’s called) for the Flames game in Toronto this year. Pretty much the cheapest tickets I could find and the seats were awesome. Not that I don’t love the PL for what it is.

(Same in Buffalo actually. Sitting about as high as you could, great atmosphere).

[Robbob]

Yeah, the value the first Row of the PL brings will be done when the Flames move over. It will have been a good 20 years. I remember King mentioning that the worst seats in the new area would be better then the PL right now. Sight lines will be awesome.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Yeah nothing wrong with the sightlines but you certainly feel distant from the ice. Anyone that has gone to the rinks that go up more vertically would agree that it creates a much better energy and experience.

The PL seats always feel cut off from the rest of the Dome. The fact that you can't even see the jumbotron makes it pretty terrible. I agree, I've never been a huge fan of the saddle shape Dome. It does look outdated, kind of like bright orange shag carpet or wood paneling on a 80's station wagon.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think you guys are missing the obvious: new arenas as directly tied to teams sticking around. People aren't stupid, they know that.

No new arena? no Flames.

The arenas themselves make no difference. I find Edmonton arena to be a moderate upgrade on the Saddledome, and in some areas, it's somehow worse.

It’s entirely worse than the Saddledome. Three times I’ve been to a game there. Bathrooms were somehow worse. If I’m building a new arena as a business owner, than bigger bathrooms = more beer/food sales. Saddledome is a great place to watch hockey, it’s just dated. I’m excited about a new arena, and adding a modern touch to some of the flaws the Dome presented, but just having new versions of the same old experience isn’t going to do it for me. Honestly, if you built an indoor plus 15 from the Saddledome to the Cowboys Casino, we’d already be ahead of Rogers Place IMO.

Let’s blow Edmonton out of the water on this new arena, like we do everything else. Go Calgary.

[MoneyGuy]

How much if any of the $60 million in budget cuts is because of an expected decision on the proposed arena/event centre and how much is because of the ire over business taxes, etc., as mentioned here.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5675714/c...cuts-approved/

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

How much if any of the $60 million in budget cuts is because of an expected decision on the proposed arena/event centre and how much is because of the ire over business taxes, etc., as mentioned here.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5675714/c...cuts-approved/

If I understand the difference between capital and operation budgets thatw as discussed above, the cuts have nothing to do with the arena.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Muta

Bang on. The Saddledome is basically nearing the end of its building life cycle. It does not meet current fire code ratings, and is several versions outdated from current building code as well. There's also major structural issues with the facility that would be too costly to renovate at this point in time.

It's best for the City, the Stampede and all involved parties to decommission and demolish this structure once the new arena is complete.

Can you explain to a laymen how a building that encloses 19000 people doesn't meet current fire code ratings but is allowed to enclose 19000 people over a hundred times a year?


How does that annoucment go? "Okay, so we finished our inspection and you don't pass....buuuut because it would be bad if three professional sports teams had nowhere to play, you can just not worry about not passing. Just make sure no fires!!!".

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Can you explain to a laymen how a building that encloses 19000 people doesn't meet current fire code ratings but is allowed to enclose 19000 people over a hundred times a year?

How does that annoucment go? "Okay, so we finished our inspection and you don't pass....buuuut because it would be bad if three professional sports teams had nowhere to play, you can just not worry about not passing. Just make sure no fires!!!".

I think it is becuase current code only applies to new construction. Like, you are required to use AFCI breakers if you add a new circuit to your house, but you don't have to upgrade all your old ones to meet current code, as long as it meets the code at the time it was built. It would be financially devastating to have to upgrade every building any time code improves safety.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Can you explain to a laymen how a building that encloses 19000 people doesn't meet current fire code ratings but is allowed to enclose 19000 people over a hundred times a year?


How does that annoucment go? "Okay, so we finished our inspection and you don't pass....buuuut because it would be bad if three professional sports teams had nowhere to play, you can just not worry about not passing. Just make sure no fires!!!".

There are maintenance requirements in the fire code that they would be required to keep up to date with (fire alarm, sprinkler, etc)... But there are no retroactive requirements that would require them to install new protection features. Only to maintain what was required to be installed originally (assuming that’s the 1981 Alberta Building Code).

That would change if they gutted the place like they did to Madison Square Gardens. The new construction would be to new codes, and that may not be attainable in this building without significant cost.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think it is becuase current code only applies to new construction. Like, you are required to use AFCI breakers if you add a new circuit to your house, but you don't have to upgrade all your old ones to meet current code, as long as it meets the code at the time it was built. It would be financially devastating to have to upgrade every building any time code improves safety.

So then does Muta's point about needing to replace because it's behind on code really mean anything? Like is it potentially unsafe?

nm second part answered above.