[News] UPD: Aug 4 released renderings of Event Centre in OP (+ new ext. renders in post #704)

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

But their influence is significantly reduced now.

With the arena itself, now.

I'm confident in the work they've done up to this point on the arena and the work they're doing in the surrounding area.

I don't see how removing them at this stage changes that. And the city still has say.

[timun]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

There are a few 'super suites' in Dome's the upper area, but the typical suites are all between the two bowls...

FYI the suites at the lower bowl were added in 1995, and there are still many smaller suites at the press level. I used to know the sum total off the top of my head but I can't quite remember; I think it was 72 suites in all, 46 at the lower level, 26 at the top.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I mean, didn't you literally say that?

People comment on stuff all the time, like the Library for example. Good architecture is generally well received by the majority of people...

No i did not literally say that. Not even close. I said maybe random people on the internet aren't the authority on what is good architecture and what isn't. The OP claimed that since it is a design forum that somehow their opinions hold more weight. But even if they are all architects and designers, for all we know they design walmarts and ugly cookie cutter homes. Many of them probably have no credentials at all.

So yeah, I think if you're going to claim authority on what classifies as good design for a billion dollar stadium, beyond just simple laymen "I think it looks pretty", then you better have some pretty damn good credentials which can be supported by more than a bunch of posts on some random internet forum.

I guarantee you none of those dozens of random internet posters have verified their credentials to the community and verified that they know the inner workings of getting a $600m project approved while navigating the concerns of a large city, billionaire owners, a million interested citizens etc.

It's way more complex than "it should be more striking and interplay better with the city".

[Jordan!]

Boring as hell design. The old Coyotes renders from a few years ago were even nicer than that.

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

Boring as hell design. The old Coyotes renders from a few years ago were even nicer than that.

How’s Houston’s ?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

No i did not literally say that. Not even close. I said maybe random people on the internet aren't the authority on what is good architecture and what isn't. The OP claimed that since it is a design forum that somehow their opinions hold more weight. But even if they are all architects and designers, for all we know they design walmarts and ugly cookie cutter homes. Many of them probably have no credentials at all.

So yeah, I think if you're going to claim authority on what classifies as good design for a billion dollar stadium, beyond just simple laymen "I think it looks pretty", then you better have some pretty damn good credentials which can be supported by more than a bunch of posts on some random internet forum.

I guarantee you none of those dozens of random internet posters have verified their credentials to the community and verified that they know the inner workings of getting a $600m project approved while navigating the concerns of a large city, billionaire owners, a million interested citizens etc.

It's way more complex than "it should be more striking and interplay better with the city".

If you're that bent over someone claiming to be adequately qualified to comment on architecture and design under the cover of the internet, maybe you need to expand your reach. I would suggest that anyone feeling the need to tout their credentials on a message board likely has some significant issues to begin with, so why expect it at all?

At any rate, anyone here is certainly within their rights to say the building renderings look like something the neighbors dog left on the lawn just as much as they can say it looks like a masterpiece.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Locke

I didnt get to where I am today by writing a lot of cheques!

Needing to do Architecting in your spare time?

I’m sure you could write it off.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If you're that bent over someone claiming to be adequately qualified to comment on architecture and design under the cover of the internet, maybe you need to expand your reach. I would suggest that anyone feeling the need to tout their credentials on a message board likely has some significant issues to begin with, so why expect it at all?

At any rate, anyone here is certainly within their rights to say the building renderings look like something the neighbors dog left on the lawn just as much as they can say it looks like a masterpiece.

lol. I guess it is too much to expect anyone to actually try and follow a conversation on the internet. Kids these days. Let's try this one more time.

Someone claimed that the other forum was filled with architecture experts.

No one ever claimed that laymen can't have opinions.

If anyone is going to claim to be an expert, don't expect people on the internet to take it at face value without proof.

Some people seem to be bent out of shape because I don't care what a bunch of armchair architecture "experts" on some random forum think. As if their supposed "expert" opinions carry more weight than CP hockey fan opinions. Sorry if that offends but it is true.

If you're still confused, I can't help.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

lol. I guess it is too much to expect anyone to actually try and follow a conversation on the internet. Kids these days. Let's try this one more time.

Someone claimed that the other forum was filled with architecture experts.

No one ever claimed that laymen can't have opinions.

If anyone is going to claim to be an expert, don't expect people on the internet to take it at face value without proof.

Some people seem to be bent out of shape because I don't care what a bunch of armchair architecture "experts" on some random forum think. As if their supposed "expert" opinions carry more weight than CP hockey fan opinions. Sorry if that offends but it is true.

If you're still confused, I can't help.

You have to admit it's kind of funny.

"Credentials, real or made up, don't matter to the conversation unless they are equivalent to the project scope."

"Are you saying we need CREDENTIALS? Everyone's opinion is valid!"

"No, I'm saying credentials DON'T matter."

"Well I disagree, I think everyone has an equal say."

"Yes, I also agree, credentials DON'T matter."

"Oh, so you need people to show their credentials for you now, huh?"


Between this and topfive designing nazi buildings, great thread today, 10/10.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Public realm projects are always going to cause people to chime in with their opinions, especially those partially funded by taxpayers.

If people want to criticize and not like it, for whatever reason, that's a valid opinion, because it is just that, their opinion. Just like how people that criticize art or the Peace Bridge without being artists or structural engineers.

I don't think you need to be qualified at all to dislike a building, nor do you have to work on projects of a similar scale to criticize projects...

If everyone loved the project, no one would be bringing up credentials to justify why they like a project because it would be pretty obvious on its face.

Personally, I am not a fan of the project, but understand that designers are limited by the aspirations (and budget) of their client. In this case, its even tougher as you are basically being asked to clad a giant refrigerated bowl...

Is it a great piece of architecture that's going to be featured on Dezeen or Archdaily or win awards for design excellence? I am pretty confident in saying no.

Is it going to be a good arena with an engaging public realm? Hopefully.

If a mod wants to PM me, I'll certainly provide my bona fides, but regardless, I have no issues with criticism, as anyone that has designed public projects before, knows that comes with the territory.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

…
Between this and topfive designing nazi buildings, great thread today, 10/10.

I didn’t design anything. It’s just a photo edit mirror of the left half of the HOK design we’re getting, a cut of the bottom of the north elevation repeated to slight the plain metal rectangle that be the HOK central focus, and a central video screen representative of the event plaza that the mirroring overwrote.

Not offended if the general consensus doesn’t appreciate symmetry.

I’m sure the new Event Centre will evoke great amounts of civic pride, and will comprehensively represent all that is Calgary in 2024 and beyond.

[Scary Eloranta]

Would be cool if they could do something like this with all that white space but maybe that's too big? At least light it up somehow?

[RM14]

Looks like back to the OG big lower bowl

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If you're that bent over someone claiming to be adequately qualified to comment on architecture and design under the cover of the internet, maybe you need to expand your reach. I would suggest that anyone feeling the need to tout their credentials on a message board likely has some significant issues to begin with, so why expect it at all?

At any rate, anyone here is certainly within their rights to say the building renderings look like something the neighbors dog left on the lawn just as much as they can say it looks like a masterpiece.

Ha! There are two ways to read the bolded sentence. One is hilarious.

On topic, the concourse, seats, and bathroom and concession situation will make or break this project. Can anyone see from the blueprints if there is a bar all the way around the rink? I can't seem to download them.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by RM14

Looks like back to the OG big lower bowl

Burke said a few years ago how this was a fundamental flaw about the dome.

The largest section is the second level so you’re limited because you can’t really charge premium prices for inferior seats.

I mean you can and they have, and the people who sit across the row or up a couple seats with a price hike know this and it doesn’t create the best long term relationship with customers.

[Boreal]

The public engagement/release/communication with this has been botched in my opinion.

Based on the plan and the images they released or leaked, I don’t know who they are really trying to impress.

I’ve long thought/hoped they would activate a stronger connection with Englewood. It looks like they are doing this on some level, but I suppose this has numerous projects associated with it within the Rivers District.


They’ve labelled Olympic Way as Festival way, not using the existing name and then revealing a festival space/plaza adjacent to the building that is forgettably bland and vanilla.

They didn’t showcase a full and activated festival space for game days or any event. This is something I was looking for that activates the whole area in times without an event with the possibility to ramp up & optimize for each event.

The critical corner they label is also not really intuitively communicated. I can understand that with C-train connections I suppose as they are undergoing separate projects.

Then their is the building itself. Why are they releasing pictures of a marginalally activated plaza when the plan states a “Visual connection” with the 12th Avenue green space / promenade?

What does this mean? Does it mean a super screen/banner like demonstrated above, showcasing the building’s form from street level, or a digital feature that displays the game score on the building like at the Sochi Olympics?

In terms of the lack of architectural magnificence (which I don’t think is necessarily a bad thing because these kind of projects are frequently costly to maintain and change as I believe Edmonton is experiencing) , they explain how their focus was on highlighting signature views of the Calgary skyline from with the building (probably the Tower and a mountain glimpse and having a building that works with the shape of the land itself. I suppose they have height/sightline restrictions to ensure this view long term. The placement of the parking garage (maybe formerly planned practice facility) is also strategically buffering the flood zone in other drawing.

[topfiverecords]

Well, now we know which Stevie Wonder song is the architect’s favourite.

[TheRealPepman]

If you guys wants a full look on the arena so far, I would recommend that you guys check out the website below:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/?find=DP2021-5558

Download the files and enjoy. =D

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by TheRealPepman

If you guys wants a full look on the arena so far, I would recommend that you guys check out the website below:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/?find=DP2021-5558

Download the files and enjoy. =D

Those are the files a bunch of us couldn't download until another (blessed) poster made them available on Google Drive. The links are wonky and only work occasionally.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Boreal

The public engagement/release/communication with this has been botched in my opinion.

Thanks for posting these. I don't mind the idea of cocktail napkin sketches, but the writing should at least be legible. This definitely does not seem like the work of a local.

1. 4th Street. Olympic Way. Stampede Trail. Festival Way. Come on /Gob Bluth.

2. My understanding was that the 'greenway' was going to run on the south side of the CP tracks? Their drawing puts it on the south side of 12 Ave. Is there going to be a MUP running past the front doors?

3. I know the historical relationship between Flames and Stampede is complex, but there are a number of language gaffes here that don't demonstrate particular engagement with that partner/stakeholder/neighbour. Stampede has tried hard to streamline their branding...they like 'Stampede Park'. Not Stampede Grounds...not the Stampede Park (The Facebook?). At least they didn't call it the Round Up Centre.

4. The festival square definitely seems half-baked. Renderings shown it on SW corner...napkin shows it south of 14 Ave where Stampede HQ building currently is. Stampede will be relocating the Coke Stage once the 17 Ave level crossing is complete...seems like a great opportunity to collaborate on one great venue that can scale for different size crowds. So, I'm sure we'll just end up with two crappy venues.

5. Worst of all, they don't use the oxford comma.