I watched Farkas and Gondek speak, full marks to her for dressing him down.
That said did she not just pull her own stunts a month ago when the Mayor couldn’t be located for 24hrs?
I just feel they all do this. Those who share your beliefs get a pass, and those that don’t are clowns.
I just honestly believe they all do it.
True. One difference is that Farkas is a clown all the time. And a major problem with him is that nobody knows who he actually represents. He was never the civic minded individual looking to serve the public. He was hoisted up by money.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Not convinced we see the inverted bowl...unless the claims of less materials ergo lower costs actually bear out (have to imagine those costs are offset by engineering costs), it seems like a lot of additional expenditure for minimal revenue generation...can the market bear a premium on those seats?
...
This doesn't make much sense...do you think larger engineering costs will be higher than the savings in construction? So much that it will increase the seating price more than a standard arena? From what I understand this will use a lot less concrete, and the big one is that the open roof span distance will be a lot shorter, which is always an engineering challenge, particularity considering snow load. The other major benefit is the building footprint can be smaller, which saves on land costs, and makes the building a bit less massive which is always a challenge for these things.
I'm hesitant about a few issues with the inverted bowl, but I don't think cost is going to be one of them. I could see it providing good savings.
...
As for McMahon, I still favour the Stampede Grandstand (ie. another relatively simple grandstand across the way). Not sure Stampede really, really wants to keep the chucks going in perpetuity, but they are also definitely not going to move away from it based on activist pressure alone. The horse track eats up a mighty chunk of real estate to only be used 10 nights a year (and is only half of the 'evening show' ticket). With a demolished Saddledome, it would give them a more interesting plot of land to play with.
Could be as easy as splitting the rodeo into two sessions a day (it's already a bloody marathon), but lots of options for how Stampede would arrange their various ticketed events (move concert series to stadium, enhanced grandstand show to arena).
I do like that idea as well. You could fit the chuck wagons and rodeo area within a stadium, and leave the ends open. Spectators wouldn't be able to see the back stretch. It would probably take some work to integrate the rodeo gates and such, and I'm not sure how much work it would be to move a dirt track in for the stampede, but the cost savings and benefits would be petty great. Being able to have soccer and football downtown, actually making use of the area for more than 10 days...
Do the inverted bowl, just have a larger lower bowl ratio like many arenas now with the traditional build, then the stacked upper bowl/balconies would have less seating but unparalleled views compared to the typical nosebleeds.
If it does accommodate 18k or in that ballpark, which would be the goal, I would absolutely go for it. Having the first of a new revolutionary design is the way to set yourself apart, rather than just attempting to be as good as Rogers Place but with adequate bathroom sizes.
We can one up everybody in the game, and you would have the ASGs, drafts and major acts lining up out the door to come through here to be a part of it.
having a revolutionary new design isn't going to have any more of a lineup than you would for having a new building of any design.
you'll get a draft and an ASG no matter what gets built.
some major concerts are going to now put Calgary on the schedule because the arena can now handle their requirements, not because of an inverted bowl design.
This doesn't make much sense...do you think larger engineering costs will be higher than the savings in construction? So much that it will increase the seating price more than a standard arena? From what I understand this will use a lot less concrete, and the big one is that the open roof span distance will be a lot shorter, which is always an engineering challenge, particularity considering snow load. The other major benefit is the building footprint can be smaller, which saves on land costs, and makes the building a bit less massive which is always a challenge for these things.
I'm hesitant about a few issues with the inverted bowl, but I don't think cost is going to be one of them. I could see it providing good savings.
I'm not a construction guy so my analogy will be crap, but imagine building one gigantic concrete staircase up Scotman's hill - let's just say it needs to be 100 feet high and 50 feet wide. Or, you can build five separate staircases, each is still 100 ft high, but only 5 ft wide. It's only half the materials, but I suspect the 5 smaller ones will take a lot longer and be more expensive...
If it was actually better and cheaper for all the reasons you list, don't you think it would be the new normal? Maybe it will become that way, but I'm not holding my breath.
It makes sense for the Clippers to try it...anything to differentiate them from the Lakers, and they're owner is a crazy man with more money than God.
having a revolutionary new design isn't going to have any more of a lineup than you would for having a new building of any design.
you'll get a draft and an ASG no matter what gets built.
some major concerts are going to now put Calgary on the schedule because the arena can now handle their requirements, not because of an inverted bowl design.
True, eventually we would get those things coming through town, but I think the happening of those events here would be expedited if the new design catches headlines in the media.
Another positive of the arena deal completion is that we can sit back & watch Bettman go after & troll the next oldest building for upgrade. What is it? San Jose or Ottawa?
Another positive of the arena deal completion is that we can sit back & watch Bettman go after & troll the next oldest building for upgrade. What is it? San Jose or Ottawa?
The Honda Center, 1993 and the SAP Center, 1993. Both are a decade newer then the Saddledome 1983.
Well for the sake of the municipality of Anaheim, I hope the Honda Center gets its much needed replacement arena very, very soon.
No kidding! but all jokes aside it will be interesting to see what happens to them when their arena is no longer operational. The Ducks are not a rich franchise, their Operating Income was -2.3 million last year, and has not been positive since 2009.
The Honda Center, 1993 and the SAP Center, 1993. Both are a decade newer then the Saddledome 1983.
SAP center reminds me of a square saddledome.. that weird aluminum siding - totally looks like an out of date dump. I'd love to go to a game there one day though.
I'm not a construction guy so my analogy will be crap, but imagine building one gigantic concrete staircase up Scotman's hill - let's just say it needs to be 100 feet high and 50 feet wide. Or, you can build five separate staircases, each is still 100 ft high, but only 5 ft wide. It's only half the materials, but I suspect the 5 smaller ones will take a lot longer and be more expensive...
If it was actually better and cheaper for all the reasons you list, don't you think it would be the new normal? Maybe it will become that way, but I'm not holding my breath.
It makes sense for the Clippers to try it...anything to differentiate them from the Lakers, and they're owner is a crazy man with more money than God.
Yes, without question. But that is only one aspect of it. Because the building goes up, instead out out, the footprint is smaller, the building is smaller, the concourses for each level are right above each other, making construction simpler and more efficient. It costs less to heat/cool, etc.
There are multiple potential benefits with that design.
I don't know how far they've gone down the design path, but I hope they don't go full inverted bowl. I say that selfishly as I want to be able to afford seats still. I also don't think this city can support 19,000 premium seats (at premium prices) which seems to be what they're going for in all of these inverted bowl videos.
I'm curious how acoustics play into all these different designs. An inverted bowl may improve sightlines, but I'd like to see the FEM models on the reflected sound.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
I'm not a construction guy so my analogy will be crap, but imagine building one gigantic concrete staircase up Scotman's hill - let's just say it needs to be 100 feet high and 50 feet wide. Or, you can build five separate staircases, each is still 100 ft high, but only 5 ft wide. It's only half the materials, but I suspect the 5 smaller ones will take a lot longer and be more expensive...
If it was actually better and cheaper for all the reasons you list, don't you think it would be the new normal? Maybe it will become that way, but I'm not holding my breath.
It makes sense for the Clippers to try it...anything to differentiate them from the Lakers, and they're owner is a crazy man with more money than God.
Ya, that's the risk. It just may be the new normal once one is proven. So we either get the first of a new generation, or a lame duck. Or go traditional and have the last of a generation if the inverted bowl succeedes and risk it being outdated in 5 years.
Really to bad one doesn't exist to see if it works. I can't help but worry V1 will have issues that can't be fixed easily.
How would the inverted bowl work with a jumbotron? Would it not severely block sightlines of people in the upper areas?
If you look at the video I posted earlier of the view from the Gondola seats at Little Caesars arena, you can see that the view of the scoreboard is unobstructed.
This is likely equivalent to where the highest level of the inverted bowl would be. As long as the lower levels have a decent amount of separation between them, I wouldn't expect it to be a problem.
As you can see at the start of the video, at Little Caesars they also have regular seating behind the gondolas, which do have an obstructed view of the scoreboard. They have smaller duplicate screens on the back of the gondolas to provide people in those seats a clear view of the video screen and scoreclock. This is similar to what we already have at the Saddledome in the Press Level seats.
If they do the full inverted bowl for the new building, there shouldn't be any problem with sightlines. If they do a hybrid something like Little Caesars, then they'll probably have to provide some supplemental screens for those behind the inverted sections.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
