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

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

False. 90% of people will be nowhere near being able to afford the price of entry with the inevitable insane ticket prices. Being pretty from the outside or having some fun stuff around it is the limit of the return most will get for their tax dollars.

There is a wide middle ground between ‘rich enough to buy season tickets’ and ‘too poor to go to any events at the arena ever’.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

IMO some of these brick baseball stadiums like Camden yards, Oracle Park in SF and Minute Maid Park are really nice. But baseball has always embraced its past.

I like brick too, but to me trying to mimic the past with pastiche architecture always just comes across as being inauthentic. I'll take a modern take using brick, but I don't want to to feel like I'm in a retro theme park.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I like the Star's arena. *ducks for cover*

Spoiler!

For what it is, it's not a badly executed arena, although I think that style fits better into an American context.

I guess I would just be disappointed if the experience of going to a hockey game felt exactly like going to the RV show at the Round-Up Centre.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

That isn't what I'm talking about at all. As this thread clearly shows, people look at the early, early prelim renders that are mostly for massing and haven't had materials and finishes selected and start to freak out. More people are quoting AC's post with a prelim render than the cleaned up render. It's not a final design either, but it's been made to look more realistic and fancy, which is what the general public expects. Sending extremely preliminary information to the public leads to people jumping to unnecessary conclusions that waste everyone's time when they need to respond to them.

Most clients I've worked with will only release a render when it's a complete enough state that the questions are focused into only a few areas like "why did you choose this material?" or "why aren't there more windows?", rather than "why is it all black?" or "this looks like babby's first SketchUp model". If the design sucks, that will probably be talked about regardless of what stage the render is released.

I should note that I have no affiliation with this project, so I'm not trying to defend the design. It's more that it's really clear about how people are examining the images in this thread, which should be a good lesson to some about sharing that info too widely.

This is going in for DP next week and it is being emailed out by the Flames now. I doubt this view is changing much between now and then. There isn’t much related to this side elevation that impacts the other three sides. The elements have a clear start and stop.

Good strategy by CSEC. Poor quality design partially leaked by non CSEC member. Then slow drip additional views of the other sides and interior so you can trick people into feeling like they’re getting more and become more accepting. Reality is it could all be a pile of coal.

When you need materials and finishes to be the design you have no architecture.

[TheIronMaiden]

Fiserv Forum is gorgeous holy crap.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I would have been very happy with something like this. Simple, but it interacts well at street level, its warm and inviting, and looks like its constructed from high quality materials. The newest rendering suggests none of those things.

huh. I thought that one looked awful. It's a big white building with no peronsality or interesting architecture. For all these people incorrectly saying the new renders look like a costco, that building literally looks exactly like a costco.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I like the Star's arena. *ducks for cover*

Spoiler!

It sure looks nice in the context of that part of Dallas IMO.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

huh. I thought that one looked awful. It's a big white building with no peronsality or interesting architecture. For all these people incorrectly saying the new renders look like a costco, that building literally looks exactly like a costco.

What Costco has a glass front and atrium like that? Is it white in those renders? I thought that is just natural light.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I like the Star's arena. *ducks for cover*

Spoiler!

I actually agree, it's quite nice. I saw a game there a few years ago. The interior is a little dated, but it was clean and easy to navigate (especially considering I'd never been there before.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

False. 90% of people will be nowhere near being able to afford the price of entry with the inevitable insane ticket prices. Being pretty from the outside or having some fun stuff around it is the limit of the return most will get for their tax dollars.

That's a load of crap. There's going to be concerts, Hitmen, Roughnecks, etc going on at the new facility. How many people from Calgary do you know that's never set foot in the dome? Most people have at one time or another.

[Scary Eloranta]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

That isn't what I'm talking about at all. As this thread clearly shows, people look at the early, early prelim renders that are mostly for massing and haven't had materials and finishes selected and start to freak out. More people are quoting AC's post with a prelim render than the cleaned up render. It's not a final design either, but it's been made to look more realistic and fancy, which is what the general public expects. Sending extremely preliminary information to the public leads to people jumping to unnecessary conclusions that waste everyone's time when they need to respond to them.

Most clients I've worked with will only release a render when it's a complete enough state that the questions are focused into only a few areas like "why did you choose this material?" or "why aren't there more windows?", rather than "why is it all black?" or "this looks like babby's first SketchUp model". If the design sucks, that will probably be talked about regardless of what stage the render is released.

I should note that I have no affiliation with this project, so I'm not trying to defend the design. It's more that it's really clear about how people are examining the images in this thread, which should be a good lesson to some about sharing that info too widely.

Thanks for your insight Mazrim. I think a lot of us on here were initially like "what the hell is this?"

Really odd that they would choose that "cleaned up" render to share with the public because of the odd angle and general blandness. Here's hoping the next images we see will be more exciting and make us all want to go there as opposed to wanting to burn it down.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

Thanks for your insight Mazrim. I think a lot of us on here were initially like "what the hell is this?"

Really odd that they would choose that "cleaned up" render to share with the public because of the odd angle and general blandness. Here's hoping the next images we see will be more exciting and make us all want to go there as opposed to wanting to burn it down.

I seriously doubt that yours is a representative reaction of the general public. There have been a few over-the-top in this thread, but my impression is that most are fine with what has been released by the Flames—don't love it, certainly don't hate it, and don't feel strongly enough to generate much more reflection than that.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Scary Eloranta]

^^^ You're probably right - I was just going by most of the comments on here and from talking with friends and family. I'm def not saying I speak for everyone. I'd really like to hear from someone who likes it and why.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

^^^ You're probably right - I was just going by most of the comments on here and from talking with friends and family. I'm def not saying I speak for everyone. I'd really like to hear from someone who likes it and why.

In my first post in this thread I said it is modern and understated. I think that is exactly what anyone should want from a new arena.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

^^^ You're probably right - I was just going by most of the comments on here and from talking with friends and family. I'm def not saying I speak for everyone. I'd really like to hear from someone who likes it and why.

I don't think we can make a real judgement off of only one angle. More images will have to be released before you get a sense of how the building will truly look.

[Mr_Pilot]

1 concept image, 17 pages of heated debate...

Man, this forum sometimes.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

This is going in for DP next week and it is being emailed out by the Flames now. I doubt this view is changing much between now and then. There isn’t much related to this side elevation that impacts the other three sides. The elements have a clear start and stop.

Good strategy by CSEC. Poor quality design partially leaked by non CSEC member. Then slow drip additional views of the other sides and interior so you can trick people into feeling like they’re getting more and become more accepting. Reality is it could all be a pile of coal.

When you need materials and finishes to be the design you have no architecture.

This is generally correct.

if the Flames are emailing this out and its going for DP application, this is 'complete' in terms of what it is going to look like on the outside, including material selection, streetscape, parking, height, massing.

Development Permits are meant to ensure that the project meets zoning and bylaws requirements as well as any traffic concerns and parking requirements...

This doesn't mean that this cannot change after a DP is approved but depending on the scale of the changes, one might have to apply for a partial or full recirculation.

Simply put, this is to ensure someone doesn't apply for one thing and build another without the City being able to review it.

I mean, its one render, though not particularly great, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be a bad building...it would be nice to see some other views of the project though... Invariably, back of house looks worse than the 'front door', so it makes me wonder what the other elevations look like...

Materials do make a big difference as the Edmonton library showed... the switch of the original material, and lose of apertures, really hurt that building, even though the massing seemed to have stayed relatively intact.

Contrast this with the Calgary library, that lost a lot of glazing and a more complex skylight on the east side but still turned out great because the formal qualities (ie massing and large arched public porch) remained intact

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

In my first post in this thread I said it is modern and understated. I think that is exactly what anyone should want from a new arena.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Definitely understated but I need someone to point out the elements of modern design. Some of that may be due to the dated color scheme which may not come across well in renderings. Honestly I get a 70’s vibe but I don’t think they were going for modern.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Definitely understated but I need someone to point out the elements of modern design. Some of that may be due to the dated color scheme which may not come across well in renderings. Honestly I get a 70’s vibe but I don’t think they were going for modern.

What dates colour scheme are you referring to? It looks modern (without being futuristic) to me. Though that’s really based on how I imagine the rest of it, without any renderings showing it’s hard to say. Don’t get the colour scheme comment though.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Design is not a strength of mine but to me that render reminds of a cattle baron I went to:

https://www.elanconstruction.com/cat...-bar-royal-oak

Which kind of figures. I kid. I kid.