McMahon/Foothills redevelopment proposal

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Muta

People should take this 'rendering' with nothing more than a grain of salt. This looks like a preliminary sketch; something that was leaked from the office unintentionally. This is a high level conceptual plan, and nothing more than that.

Please do not judge this project on this image alone... these projects typically have so much more going on behind the scenes than people know.

I mean, it's pretty much the same quality as the Flames deliberately released for CalgaryNext. So I wouldn't simply assume this is a leak.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I mean, it's pretty much the same quality as the Flames deliberately released for CalgaryNext. So I wouldn't simply assume this is a leak.

Nah. I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the preferred version to be released. Again though, the point is that this is high level conceptual planning, nothing more.

[Fuzz]

I don't see anything in the article that suggests this was leaked. This is what was "presented" to council. Hopefully they put some nice fins and racing stripes on it for the presentation that we didn't get to see.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't see anything in the article that suggests this was leaked. This is what was "presented" to council. Hopefully they put some nice fins and racing stripes on it for the presentation that we didn't get to see.

It's too early for that. This is just high level conceptual planning; this type of material is presented to the City all the time. It doesn't mean they should be released publicly, lest you want ridicule for the 'quality' of your 'renderings', which is what this thread is unsurprisingly doing.

[Fuzz]

They could have at least tried to colour within the lines (roads).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Muta

It's too early for that. This is just high level conceptual planning; this type of material is presented to the City all the time. It doesn't mean they should be released publicly, lest you want ridicule for the 'quality' of your 'renderings', which is what this thread is unsurprisingly doing.

It's the high level concept that I think is the main issue: shrinking the area dedicated to sport to build residential. Surely there are better ways to add density to Calgary.

[topfiverecords]

Maybe their high level needs to start a little higher.

[Ace]

Colour me happy that the talk of an indoor stadium still exists beyond the death of Calgary Next

[Joborule]

Indoor stadium for the Stamps would be a sure fire way to kill the attendance of Stamps games. People that come to the games want to enjoy the tailgating, and sunshine during the summer months of the season, where they get their biggest draws from.

How's indoor football treating the BC Lions?

[Muta]

I don't think it would kill the attendance at the Stamps game. If anything, it will draw MORE people to the stadium. Lots of people I know don't go because it's outside and the weather in Calgary is all over the place. They would go if it wasn't -10 or -20 outside, where you have to sit there for three hours. It isn't comparable to Vancouver, as we get more extreme weather here.

Calgary is absolutely a climate you should have an indoor stadium if you can actually manage to build one.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't think it would kill the attendance at the Stamps game. If anything, it will draw MORE people to the stadium. Lots of people I know don't go because it's outside and the weather in Calgary is all over the place. They would go if it wasn't -10 or -20 outside, where you have to sit there for three hours. It isn't comparable to Vancouver, as we get more extreme weather here.

Calgary is absolutely a climate you should have an indoor stadium if you can actually manage to build one.

I disagree. And by comparison, people that I know that are season ticket holders, would get rid of theirs as the outdoor experience is a big draw. How many of those that are against going to Stamps games because it isn't indoors during July-September?

Football indoors isn't ideal at all really. Football in BC Place kills the atmosphere, and it's totally applicable because during the warm summer months when weather isn't a factor at all, they're still drawing crappy attendance; and even less near the end. The CFL has to advertise itself as a summer league when the NFL isn't on, to draw the casual crowd in. And that same crowd doesn't want to be stuck inside a box during a beautiful summer day; which is very limited around these parts. Watching football outside should be as much of a summer activity as rafting, boating, patios, hiking, and anything that involve being outside.

Taking incentive away from attending summer months games, has more risk involved, than to encourage attendance in October/November. And honestly, attendance doesn't seem to be effected all that much even if it's cool weather outside. Fans will still come if the game is significant enough, and the weather isn't too extreme. The probability of times where weather is uncomfortable enough that having an enclosed venue is necessary for good turnout likely very low.

And even if they were to do a retractable roof, the way they're designed still makes you feel like you're in an indoor building, and not immersed with the outside environment.

This topic has been discussed already in the CalgaryNEXT/Arena thread(s), so points that I've brought up I've made before. Overall, I say the costs, and cons of a indoor venue far exceed the benefits.

[81MC]

Football does not belong indoors. If you know people who don’t go because it’s outside, they probably weren’t going anyhow. There are a few games a year you could argue suffer attendance due to weather. But there is something about watching football on the snow that brings people together.
The views from McMahon and being outdoors is one of the best parts of the Stamps experience. As a season ticket holder, I would without doubt terminate were the Stamps to play in a building. I can bring someone who doesn’t even like football, and they can enjoy fresh air, sunshine, views nosehill and downtown, and maybe some rain (rare) or cold (oh no!). Inside an arena, I can’t imagine trying to entertain someone.
Dear Everyone, please don’t build a football stadium indoors. It’s not right, and I would bet my tickets attendance would drop quickly.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Muta

People should take this 'rendering' with nothing more than a grain of salt. This looks like a preliminary sketch; something that was leaked from the office unintentionally. This is a high level conceptual plan, and nothing more than that.

Please do not judge this project on this image alone... these projects typically have so much more going on behind the scenes than people know.

I don’t quite understand this approach, you are obviously in the field but how much work is it to produce a nice rendering? I don’t need a final quality but something that doesn’t look like it’s drag and dropped from a prepackaged set of elements.

Why would a drawing like this be produced. Wouldn’t a nicely dimensioned 2D plotplan be sufficient for this level of planning. At the feasibility level aren’t you just trying to present everything as fitting. So I see is rendering as designed to sell becuas it’s morw than just feasibility.

I’m approaching this from the internal review we do before projects vs presentations to the board and shareholders. Even when the concept is preliminary when it goes before the board it looks professional and fits in the plot space provided.

This projext, the Olympics and Calgary Next all seemed to lack this. Why?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Indoor stadium for the Stamps would be a sure fire way to kill the attendance of Stamps games. People that come to the games want to enjoy the tailgating, and sunshine during the summer months of the season, where they get their biggest draws from.

How's indoor football treating the BC Lions?

There's little doubt in my mind an indoor stadium would result in higher attendance especially in the fall and playoffs where they usually don't sell out because people don't want to sit in the cold when they can watch at home in HD. The fact the Stampeders want an indoor facility tells you all you need to know about the attendance studies they have done as opposed to your opinion. Don't confuse football with baseball as indoor facilities in the NFL has never been a deterrent for fans.

Lions attendance has absolutely nothing to do with attendance in Calgary. Nobody is going to Canucks or Lions games because BC is a bandwagon sports city and football is not nearly as important to them as it is in the prairies as Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, and Winnipeg are the core fan bases of the CFL. It's also a way to guarantee more Grey Cups in Calgary which brings in more revenue to the team.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t quite understand this approach, you are obviously in the field but how much work is it to produce a nice rendering? I don’t need a final quality but something that doesn’t look like it’s drag and dropped from a prepackaged set of elements.

Why would a drawing like this be produced. Wouldn’t a nicely dimensioned 2D plotplan be sufficient for this level of planning. At the feasibility level aren’t you just trying to present everything as fitting. So I see is rendering as designed to sell becuas it’s morw than just feasibility.

I’m approaching this from the internal review we do before projects vs presentations to the board and shareholders. Even when the concept is preliminary when it goes before the board it looks professional and fits in the plot space provided.

This projext, the Olympics and Calgary Next all seemed to lack this. Why?

A tremendous amount for a project of this magnitude. Ideally they should have made the visual far more "sketchy" or "conceptual" not to better convey the idea but to dissuade he public from taking an image too literally. Just for that I would say the way they choose to present the idea was a little problematic, especially if you release the image to the public for consumption.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Losing FDB and Norma Bush for however long construction takes is a huge hit. Not just for NWCAA but all of Minor Hockey. And figure skating, ringette, and most of all UCalgary Dinos mens and womens teams who call FDB home. Even if they do replace with two new rinks there is still that loss of ice (at least one and probably two seasons) which is a big blow.

Plus baseball, track and field etc.

And the WHL would need to find a new home for their head offices.

You forgot to include the AJHL Mustangs who are also based out of FDB.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't think it would kill the attendance at the Stamps game. If anything, it will draw MORE people to the stadium. Lots of people I know don't go because it's outside and the weather in Calgary is all over the place. They would go if it wasn't -10 or -20 outside, where you have to sit there for three hours. It isn't comparable to Vancouver, as we get more extreme weather here.

Calgary is absolutely a climate you should have an indoor stadium if you can actually manage to build one.

No, sorry but I completely disagree. People talk about this like its -10 to -20 every single game. The vast majority of games are held in weather you want to be outdoors for. June, July, August and September represent 7-8 of the 9-10 home games...80%). Round down to 70% to account for major rain.

Indoor football would kill attendance in the long run. This is not the NFL where the spectacle and production value are the main draws. A big part of the CFL experience is sitting outdoors as the seasons progress from spring to winter.

We spend enough time indoors in this climate. Once the initial new stadium buzz has worn off, nobody is going to go to go pay a boat load of money to sit indoors in June, July, August and September. They're going to do something else outside and watch the game indoors, in their house, for free.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The fact the Stampeders want an indoor facility tells you all you need to know about the attendance studies they have done as opposed to your opinion. Don't confuse football with baseball as indoor facilities in the NFL has never been a deterrent for fans.

CSEC wants an indoor stadium to be able to host a bunch of other non-football events. It has little to nothing to do with Stamps fans or attendance. CSEC threw the majority of long term loyal season ticket holders under the bus with their CalgaryNEXT plan.

As for NFL, again, the CFL is not the NFL where production value makes it worthwhile and even desirable to be indoors.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

You forgot to include the AJHL Mustangs who are also based out of FDB.

For what the Mustangs draw, they could play just about anywhere. Even the crappy for spectator rinks in Airdrie or Cochrane.

[Tyler]

I think CSEC is trying to find a middle ground, with a partially covered roof and contained stadium.

I think that benefits both groups and is probably a smart move.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t quite understand this approach, you are obviously in the field but how much work is it to produce a nice rendering? I don’t need a final quality but something that doesn’t look like it’s drag and dropped from a prepackaged set of elements.

Why would a drawing like this be produced. Wouldn’t a nicely dimensioned 2D plotplan be sufficient for this level of planning. At the feasibility level aren’t you just trying to present everything as fitting. So I see is rendering as designed to sell becuas it’s morw than just feasibility.

I’m approaching this from the internal review we do before projects vs presentations to the board and shareholders. Even when the concept is preliminary when it goes before the board it looks professional and fits in the plot space provided.

This projext, the Olympics and Calgary Next all seemed to lack this. Why?

My co-op work term in architectural school was pretty much entirely dedicated to assembling dozens and dozens of these kinds of sketch site layouts for a somewhat-similar type of multi-building project - albeit they were physical models made out of stiff insulation foam, they were essentially just as loose as the OP is. If anything I would have loved to have been working with drag-and-drop premade elements instead, the fumes from the hot wire cutter really messed up my throat after a while, fun times. And it was a similar type of deal when I was living in Halifax during the very early stages of their public consultation process for their new central library - they started out the process quite literally offering up dozens of arrangements of untextured 3D shapes dragged and dropped straight out of 3DS Max.

You really have to be cautious about the level of detail in the very early phases of a design proposal, ESPECIALLY with a massive site-scale multi-building project like this that will inevitably involve a great deal of public consultation. It looks sloppy but trust me from a public-input perspective it's a vastly better option than presenting something (ANYthing) that could be interpreted as already decided upon - and that doesn't even get into the constantly-evolving feedback from the multitude of internal meetings that go on outside of the public eye that generates the need for adjustments either. I get that the CalgaryNEXT materials are a meme around here but I honestly thought that their biggest problem was that they were too concrete and gave the impression that THIS is what's getting built regardless of how obviously flawed it is - otherwise why bother using up the time and computer resources to render the images at all? This early on in the lifespan of a project the emphasis really needs to be on producing something that emphasises flexibility and can be rearranged and adjusted quickly - exactly BECAUSE it's inevitably going to be flawed and in need of extensive changes, as this thread's feedback clearly attests to.

Sure they could have cropped the site area a little more cleanly than they did and they probably ought to have offered up a couple more alternative layouts (I guarantee you they exist even if they didn't turn up at the meeting), but there's just way too many fluid variables at this point to justify burning up the time and resources needed to churn out rendered images. It's simply the reality of the process - neither of my aforementioned examples were the products of chumps, both offices are highly praised award-winning firms and they take the exact same kind of approach.