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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Maybe you should give Brian Burke a call and see if he can break it down for you.

Brian Burke likes to pontificate. If that is your argument, you don't have one.

Seat pricing is pretty straight-forward: each seat will be priced at whatever they believe they can charge for it, i.e. supply and demand.

The fact that there may be more (or less) seats in the 2nd deck vs the lower bowl, will have no impact whatsoever on overall ticket prices.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Brian Burke likes to pontificate. If that is your argument, you don't have one.

Seat pricing is pretty straight-forward: each seat will be priced at whatever they believe they can charge for it, i.e. supply and demand.

The fact that there may be more (or less) seats in the 2nd deck vs the lower bowl, will have no impact whatsoever on overall ticket prices.

If you're saying what I think, it does not follow. Demand definitely changes based on the quality of goods offered.

If lower-bowl seats are perceived by the buying public as having a higher value, and the supply of them is increased at the expense of upper-bowl seats, average ticket prices and total revenue can both go up.

Now, if you're arguing that a greater supply of seats in the lower bowl won't affect the price of seats in the back rows of the upper bowl, or down in front by the glass, I'll grant you that. But if ‘overall ticket prices’ means an average or an aggregate, the layout of the building will certainly affect that.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Brian Burke likes to pontificate. If that is your argument, you don't have one.

Seat pricing is pretty straight-forward: each seat will be priced at whatever they believe they can charge for it, i.e. supply and demand.

The fact that there may be more (or less) seats in the 2nd deck vs the lower bowl, will have no impact whatsoever on overall ticket prices.

I’d argue you can charge more for a crappy lower bowl seat than a crappy upper bowl seat. If distance to ice is similar. Hence why you maximize the lower bowl.

I fully expect the new buildings second level to be terrible like it is in Edmonton.

[Strange Brew]

If you take the thousand best seats in the Saddledome and make them nicer (club access, waiter service, whatever) you will be able to charge more. There is not an artificial cap on ticket prices. People will pay more for a better experience.

Maybe has something to do with why they’re building a new arena.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I’d argue you can charge more for a crappy lower bowl seat than a crappy upper bowl seat. If distance to ice is similar. Hence why you maximize the lower bowl.

I fully expect the new buildings second level to be terrible like it is in Edmonton.

Take 2 theoretical buildings in Calgary. Keep all else equal (concessions, parking, etc) and just change one variable - move 1,000 seats from the first bowl to a comparable distance from the ice in the second bowl, you would be able to charge the same amount for those seats

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If you take the thousand best seats in the Saddledome and make them nicer (club access, waiter service, whatever) you will be able to charge more. There is not an artificial cap on ticket prices. People will pay more for a better experience.

Maybe has something to do with why they’re building a new arena.

We aren't talking about nicer, we are talking about comparable seats at a similar distance from the ice

Obviously, with better seats, and a better experience, you can charge more

[uofaflamesfan]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

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.

I could be wrong but I think the festival square shown on the napkin drawings is separate from the Event Centre and is outlined as the "event plaza" in the River's District Master Plan: https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...%2B%281%29.pdf

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by uofaflamesfan

I could be wrong but I think the festival square shown on the napkin drawings is separate from the Event Centre and is outlined as the "event plaza" in the River's District Master Plan: https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...%2B%281%29.pdf

Very nice plan. I just spent a few days in Edmonton and I must say that their downtown development has really changed the feeling of the city. Many restaurants within walking distance of the condo's and it has become way more of a walkable area than it was historically (spent a lot of time in Edmonton when I was younger). This plan looks twice as good as what I saw up there and I look forward to seeing it developed. And their arena still looks like a toilet bowl!

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Take 2 theoretical buildings in Calgary. Keep all else equal (concessions, parking, etc) and just change one variable - move 1,000 seats from the first bowl to a comparable distance from the ice in the second bowl, you would be able to charge the same amount for those seats

Then why do second levels keep getting smaller? Why not keep the luxury seats closer to the ice?

[The Familia]

This new arena concept follows virtually none of the recommendations outlined in the Rivers District Master Plan as linked above. This is what was bound to happen with CMLC dropped as the developers.

They state the intersection at 12th Ave and Olympic Way is the knuckle and gateway to the East Village. As such, it should be a focal point entrance of the arena. What we got is an after thought, almost as if they said “shoot, I guess we can throw a couple doors in this corner”. The NW and SW entrances should have both been dynamic entrances with plaza space. The entire West wall should be retail (which it has to a degree) connecting the two corners. Instead of just three large restaurant type retail places, I was hoping for a few smaller CRU’s along the strip as well. CRU’s should have also been placed along either 12th or 14th, with my preference being 12th if they couldn’t do both. I never expected retail on all 4 sides, I do expect it along a minimum or 2 with 3 being the most ideal. Even retail halfway down the North and South facades would have been a win.

The arena lacks windows. It feels heavy, dark, and sterile. It doesn’t look inviting and is just another cold box that you don’t really want to linger around for too long. Material selection looks cheap which doesn’t help. Overall I expect an upgrade over the Saddledome but it will fall well short of being transformative and will probably do little to increase the vibrancy of the area. My final grade after looking it over for a week is a D+ or a solid 59%.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Familia

This new arena concept follows virtually none of the recommendations outlined in the Rivers District Master Plan as linked above. This is what was bound to happen with CMLC dropped as the developers.

CMLC were never developers and their involvement ceased long after this design and placement was chosen.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We aren't talking about nicer, we are talking about comparable seats at a similar distance from the ice

Obviously, with better seats, and a better experience, you can charge more

We are talking about nicer. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but generally speaking it certainly seems lower bowl seats are perceived as being better. And you still have the first few rows in the second level which always be premium.

Most new arenas seem to be designed with this mind don't they?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

CMLC were never developers and their involvement ceased long after this design and placement was chosen.

It also sounds like from early 2021 info that came out in the Skyrise Cities thread, that CMLC had some odd suggestions such as the arena should have seats spaced further apart to account for permanent social distancing, like covid measures was going to be a permanent thing. Even if that was to be done, clearly it would be such a drastic reduction in seating that it wouldn't be practical for the Flames, and the city itself to go forth with that.

This is an arena that's being built to hold major sporting and entertainment events. How it functions on the outside was always going to be a bonus to it, not the main feature. Expecting anymore more beyond that means one has a big disconnect on the purpose (as well costs) of this project.

[Manhattanboy]

The problem with Rogers Arena (other than the home team that plays there) is the gradual slope of the first tier. By the time you get to the top row you are miles from centre ice.

Hoping the slope of the Event Centre seating bowl is much steeper.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

The problem with Rogers Arena (other than the home team that plays there) is the gradual slope of the first tier. By the time you get to the top row you are miles from centre ice.

Hoping the slope of the Event Centre seating bowl is much steeper.

How does that make any difference? All you would accomplish is to make the back rows higher up from the ice, while still being the same distance back.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

How does that make any difference? All you would accomplish is to make the back rows higher up from the ice, while still being the same distance back.

Just like how a ladder takes up less horizontal space than a staircase.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

How does that make any difference? All you would accomplish is to make the back rows higher up from the ice, while still being the same distance back.

This part is incorrect.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Just like how a ladder takes up less horizontal space than a staircase.

People don't sit on the middle steps of a ladder. The comparison is invalid.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This part is incorrect.

The seats are still the same horizontal distance from front to back. The legroom in front of each seat is still the same horizontal distance. Each tier of seats is level and takes up a certain horizontal distance, no matter how much higher or lower the row behind and the row in front are.

Am I going to have to draw a diagram?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

People don't sit on the middle steps of a ladder. The comparison is invalid.



The seats are still the same horizontal distance from front to back. The legroom in front of each seat is still the same horizontal distance. Each tier of seats is level and takes up a certain horizontal distance, no matter how much higher or lower the row behind and the row in front are.

Am I going to have to draw a diagram?

Except the legroom doesn’t work that way in this style. You can have less distance between seats.

[GioforPM]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/under...ty-rose-steele