Anyway.... I was curious what this would look like:
This should be to scale. So you'd have to have the rodeo gates under the east stands. I don't know how feasible that is, or if they would work elsewhere, or as a temporary structure. But it does illustrate that there is room for a track to run through.
Just made another with it transparent, you can see there is plenty of space for the rodeo field/Chuckwagon starts. I think they should do a feasibility study, I like it.
I have been rambling to anyone that will listen to me (there aren't many) for several years now that the Stampede Grandstand would be a ####ing awesome place to watch a football game. You could make that one of the most unique venues in North American sports. Outside of the chucks, do they even run horses there? Has that not all moved to Century Downs?
I bet you could turn the Grandstand into a really cool football environment for much less than the cost of standing up a new $250 million structure.
They probably asked the Stampede Board what they'd want, hypothetically, over lunch one day, saw the number and went 'uh uh'.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
Looking at how a CFL field would fit into the horse racing track, I wonder if a modified 'inverted bowl' or a 'stacked bowl' concept would work better for football. Maybe there's 6-8 concourses with 6-8 rows of seats hanging off one side.
I grew up in Edmonton and we had Eskimo season tickets. They were in the upper deck, but one set was in row 46 and the other was in row 72. You seemed so far from the field, mainly because of the track surrounding the field.
Let's say you were in row 50 in more of a vertical structure, and it could be 50 feet back of the sideline yet 100 feet above the field, that could be an awesome vantage point for football. You'd pretty much be sheltered from the elements too. I suppose the entire thing could be covered easier and cheaper because the roof would be a lot smaller. Now, it could be a field house too.
Heck, you could tear down the east seats of McMahon and build this. Attach a parkade to the other side of the concourse, then attach student housing units and a hotel to the parkade. You've got a highly integrated multi-use structure with pretty much year-round revenue.
I'm fairly sober. I think.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bob-loblaw For This Useful Post:
Looking at how a CFL field would fit into the horse racing track, I wonder if a modified 'inverted bowl' or a 'stacked bowl' concept would work better for football. Maybe there's 6-8 concourses with 6-8 rows of seats hanging off one side.
...
Heck, you could tear down the east seats of McMahon and build this. Attach a parkade to the other side of the concourse, then attach student housing units and a hotel to the parkade. You've got a highly integrated multi-use structure with pretty much year-round revenue.
They did something like that in Portland to expand the capacity of their soccer stadium.
This cost $80 million, which also included upgrades to the scoreboard and stadium lighting.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Cool - maybe they explored the idea of football / soccer / other sports inside. Point still stands.
No, your point is vague and stupid.
That study very likely occurred several years ago (care to share the timing Mr. Insider?) when they were figuring out their next steps in evolving towards a tier 1 conference facility, which is where the indoor parameters came from. They landed on Corral renovation. This may/may not have been concurrent with CalgaryNext - I'd bet a cocktail napkin conversation happened between Warren/Vern from CS and KK/etc. with CSEC - the Flames position was likely that arena is priority #1, though they're exploring their own hair-brained scheme of dealing with the stadium at the same time. Which doesn't mean the Stampede wouldn't have opted for a big-ass covered grandstand facility if the business case made more sense than renovating the Corral.
What's changed since then? Arena deal sorted, Hall F and Corral re-vamp proceeding, 17th ave extension/Vic Park station re-design, Green Line 3 steps forward and 1 step back, Enmax Park completed, youth campus [completed?], and perhaps most interestingly the Saddledome lands being traded to Stampede (not to mention everything in East Village).
Also, 6 horses died in the chucks this year, which seems to have blown over without much ado, but I'm sure it re-sparked the question of if/when the Calgary Stampede might move on from chuckwagons (I assure you it has been contemplated at many levels of the organization - support for the idea varies widely). I expect various levels of government have also considered their financial relationship with the Stampede in light of horse deaths...it's a political hot potato either way, so status quo is the path of least resistance, for now. My point in all of this is that there would be many influential people enticed by a project that could serve as an 'excuse' to move on from the chucks (also many steadfastly against the idea).
Of course a two-sided stadium could be designed to incorporate the track...it could just as easily be designed such that locker rooms, rodeo gates, and/or endzone seating make the track 'infeasible'.
I haven't been to university campus lately, but I'm sure their position regarding McMahon Stadium site continues to evolve as time passes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Yes, really. Use your head here; why would a private organization release their strategic plans for everyone to see? This isn't the City of Calgary or some other public institution.
As for your idea being unfeasible, it hasn't been bothered to be studied, whereas an indoor option was. Any way you try and spin it, that's the reality of the situation. Complain and conspire all you want, it doesn't change what's already been prioritized and done.
They're not a private organization, they're a not-for-profit organization (they make plenty of profit, but it's all reinvested directly) with tons of funding directly from all levels of government. While it's not likely that they'd release draft plans/feasibility studies, it's also not totally out of the question (especially in the context of a larger project, like the Olympics).
I've explained why indoor was the priority in the past. The present and future are very different.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
The only example I can recall of the Stampede Grandstand used for any other purpose than equine events was a Fleetwood Mac concert and there were too many watching from Scotsman Hill and there were was a lot of NIMBY which basically killed the idea.
__________________
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
I went to Monster Jam once there. Recommended. Way better than seeing them in an exhaust filled arena where they have no space to turn around. And they had some X-games style big air motocross stuff you couldn't do in an arena. I'd tell you to go buy a seat, but you'll only need the edge!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Vague and stupid? Get off your high horse dude, seriously.
That is a lot of assumptions in your post. LOTS. If that's what you want to believe, you go right ahead. I'm not obligated to go into any further detail about what the Stampede has done with that study; I will say, though, it was done fairly recently.
Also, they're not releasing the study, and they have no reason to. They're not a public organization. That's the point.
Looking at how a CFL field would fit into the horse racing track, I wonder if a modified 'inverted bowl' or a 'stacked bowl' concept would work better for football. Maybe there's 6-8 concourses with 6-8 rows of seats hanging off one side.
The current Grandstand offers a bit of this concept (2 suspended seating decks). Protection from the elements is already far superior to McMahon. The slight obtuse angle from midfield would also be a benefit IMO.
Vague and stupid? Get off your high horse dude, seriously.
That is a lot of assumptions in your post. LOTS. If that's what you want to believe, you go right ahead. I'm not obligated to go into any further detail about what the Stampede has done with that study; I will say, though, it was done fairly recently.
Also, they're not releasing the study, and they have no reason to. They're not a public organization. That's the point.
My post is entirely speculation, I would never claim otherwise. IMO it's all more valuable to the discussion than you're vague claims. You don't have to say anything more if you don't want to...you just can't use your secretive insider info to justify anything, aside from the fact that building a roof is expensive.
CalgaryNext was fairly recent. As was the announcement of BMO expansion...
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
My post is entirely speculation, I would never claim otherwise. IMO it's all more valuable to the discussion than you're vague claims. You don't have to say anything more if you don't want to...you just can't use your secretive insider info to justify anything, aside from the fact that building a roof is expensive.
CalgaryNext was fairly recent. As was the announcement of BMO expansion...
"Vague claims"? Are you actually suggesting your speculation is more valuable than nuggets of real information that I can share with CP? Are you serious? If you don't like me doing that, simply stay out of the discussion instead. I don't owe you a damn thing.
It's posters like you who really make it tiring to really want to share anything with this board at all. I do it because I love CP, I love development, I love the new arena, I love the Rivers District, and I love this city. And there's posters that appreciate the info. As a source I was verified by the mods long, long ago. I'll never understand the hostility that some people continue to have in this thread, particularly as it relates to arena and other development info.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
"Vague claims"? Are you actually suggesting your speculation is more valuable than nuggets of real information that I can share with CP? Are you serious? If you don't like me doing that, simply stay out of the discussion instead. I don't owe you a damn thing.
The problem is when you use your nuggets to try to to definitively quash a discussion based on your own speculation/extrapolations. Just because A+B did not equal C at one point in time does not necessarily mean that A+D could not equal E in the future.
I have a fair bit of insider knowledge on this myself (though mostly outdated) - I do know many of the players involved and some of the history/evolution of projects on Stampede Park. I'm also always careful to not draw rigid conclusions from knowing only part of the story.
FWIW, I don't think this outcome is very likely (at least not in the near term), but I'm also doubtful there is much appetite for anyone to pay for McMahon reno's anytime soon, either.
The roof nugget is actually really, really interesting, so thank you. But it really spurs a lot of questions:
1. Are we talking about a roof only or 3 walls and a roof (ie. fully indoor)? Perhaps most importantly - what were their objectives in the idea of building a roof? (you've been quite clear on what their objectives were not, can you tell us anything about what they were?)
2. Your post implied that it was for a roof from the current grandstand to the current infield structure, but I don't imagine this is what you really meant. Of course, I'm speculating yet again here, but might it have involved an entirely new infield structure? (if so, the possibilities are pretty broad for what that could have been (for instance, a much larger indoor concourse (aka. versatile conference space)
3. If my speculation about the infield structure has merit, do you know that they would have wanted to keep the infield dimensions the same? Or might they have considered increasing to 70M+ from the grandstand without explicitly stating "CFL field"?
4. Was cost the only factor in deeming the idea infeasible? Or were there other considerations - for instance, how does the grandstand show factor in? Fireworks? Do you keep the chucks? Does running the barrels on a dry track indoors and the rest of the track outdoors when it's raining make any sense?
This last point is most interesting to me...an indoor infield seems inherently incompatible with chuckwagon racing (not impossible, just not smart), so the fact that they actually explored the idea indicates more willingness to look beyond the chucks. IMO the chucks are the biggest hurdle (aside from the competing interests of involved stakeholders) to this concept being the most obvious solution to Calgary's football stadium problem...
Sorry for using lots of words again
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
