The stadium is the field house. I believe the savings he talks about are from combining the arena and field house. I thought the savings he threw around was less than $330 million. I don't think I am buying that number in any case.
There are significant savings realized by combining the two facilities.
Well, I'm just mentioning it. If they combine the two facilities, then the integrated superstructure is less in cost than with two separate facilities. Depending on the design, you'd save money on concrete, formwork, rebar, structural steel, etc. The building envelope would also likely cost less overall.
If both facilities are going to get built, combining them is an option to save money, even if the design isn't up to people's expectations.
The stadium is the field house. I believe the savings he talks about are from combining the arena and field house. I thought the savings he threw around was less than $330 million. I don't think I am buying that number in any case.
I think some of the 300 million they are claiming saved is from not building three separate buildings (arena, fieldhouse, conventional/entertainment Centre). That would be much more plausible and he says it in the video which i assume wasnt a slip of the tongue.
Well, I'm just mentioning it. If they combine the two facilities, then the integrated superstructure is less in cost than with two separate facilities. Depending on the design, you'd save money on concrete, formwork, rebar, structural steel, etc. The building envelope would also likely cost less overall.
If both facilities are going to get built, combining them is an option to save money, even if the design isn't up to people's expectations.
I don't really think there's any arguing that. If it's all done at once it would likely be cheaper than two separate facilities.
At this point though, I'd rather they get over their little beef with the board and just build the new arena on the Stampede grounds. Then build a fieldhouse somewhere a little more friendly to the amateur userbase.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
There are significant savings realized by combining the two facilities.
In the planning phase, yes. I suspect it is also way more likely to result in delays and/or cost overruns during construction (more than doubling the scope and complexity of the project) and earlier renovations if they discover operational inefficiencies/issues once built. Considering their inability to manage the proposal so far, I'm skeptical of their ability to manage even a simple standalone facility.
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
I don't really think there's any arguing that. If it's all done at once it would likely be cheaper than two separate facilities.
I would also think so, but look no further than Stampede's BMO expansion to see a counter argument. They built Hall D in the early 2000's, Hall E ~2010, and it looks like they'll finish Hall F in their latest plan. These are pretty much identical, rectangular connected buildings - if there was ever going to be a major cost savings by getting it all done at once, you'd think it would be there.
Of course, there could be other reasons for that decision (lacking the money, wanting to 'right-size' for demand, simple incompetence, etc), and they did achieve a minor benefit by building a higher ceiling in Hall E since they did it later and realized it would be better.
I really like the concept a state-of-the-art arena/stadium complex that is the hub of activity in Calgary, with very few 'dark nights'. A covered stadium that not only houses the Stamps, but also is utilized as a field house, can host major concerts and events, consumer shows, amateur events seems like a great idea in our climate. Make it able to accommodate MLS seems reasonable. A high tech arena with modern amenity's like washrooms, wider concourses and deeper seat space - great!
In my mind, the presentation should have included:
- Some basic proposal for how bow trail realignment would look like
- Showcased what a typical week in October could have looked like, estimate numbers of people who would use it on a daily basis.
- Handle the parking questions better. How do I bring my kids to the
field house carting a box of jerseys when there is a flames game on?
- Project a sense of energy and vitality
- Give a better sense of the walk-ability of the complex from downtown
- Oh, and have all this done 4 years ago, so that most of the objections could have been handled with it.
- I don't think they are that far away from a funding model, I like the ticket tax the most. I would use this facility often, and feel like I should be paying for it. (much like whenever I use the airport). However, I believe that many many meeting needed to be had with the city in advance of this going public. The back and forth between the city and CSEC is a little childish.
I'm still think railtown would me a much better fit with less issues (*I know they don't own the land) than WV, especially with the ability to build in a Green-line LRT station.
I'm disappointed that the CalgaryNext presentation didn't inspire me at all. It actually felt hollow, almost lacking energy and excitement. I guess my expectations for the announcement after all of these years were not realistic.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rayne008 For This Useful Post:
His video makes it sound like they are going to clean up a blighted area of the city and do us a favour. He doesn't mention that we will pay for it, before any of the costs to the arena are tallied.
His video makes it sound like they are going to clean up a blighted area of the city and do us a favour. He doesn't mention that we will pay for it, before any of the costs to the arena are tallied.
Yeah, this idea that if the city doesn't get on board with this nothing will ever happen in West Village is just hilarious to me. If the city announced they were going to clean up the land and give it away for free to interested developers, you'd have no trouble finding developers that would jump on board. The Flames aren't doing anything, but taking trying to take credit for someone else's work and money.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JayP For This Useful Post:
I really like the concept a state-of-the-art arena/stadium complex that is the hub of activity in Calgary, with very few 'dark nights'. A covered stadium that not only houses the Stamps, but also is utilized as a field house, can host major concerts and events, consumer shows, amateur events seems like a great idea in our climate. Make it able to accommodate MLS seems reasonable. A high tech arena with modern amenity's like washrooms, wider concourses and deeper seat space - great!
In my mind, the presentation should have included:
- Some basic proposal for how bow trail realignment would look like
- Showcased what a typical week in October could have looked like, estimate numbers of people who would use it on a daily basis.
- Handle the parking questions better. How do I bring my kids to the
field house carting a box of jerseys when there is a flames game on?
- Project a sense of energy and vitality
- Give a better sense of the walk-ability of the complex from downtown
- Oh, and have all this done 4 years ago, so that most of the objections could have been handled with it.
- I don't think they are that far away from a funding model, I like the ticket tax the most. I would use this facility often, and feel like I should be paying for it. (much like whenever I use the airport). However, I believe that many many meeting needed to be had with the city in advance of this going public. The back and forth between the city and CSEC is a little childish.
I'm still think railtown would me a much better fit with less issues (*I know they don't own the land) than WV, especially with the ability to build in a Green-line LRT station.
I'm disappointed that the CalgaryNext presentation didn't inspire me at all. It actually felt hollow, almost lacking energy and excitement. I guess my expectations for the announcement after all of these years were not realistic.
Not a slag on the post or the proposal really, but the CalgaryNEXT proposal, so far, does not include a bow trail realignment. Most renderings and plans put the building in between the two lanes.
Which is why the proposal is so half-arsed. If you are going to wipe the slate clean, dig up contamination etc, why not move it away form the river. No actual thought has been put into it. Just plop the arena down.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Are you suggesting we don't need a new stadium and a new arena in the near term?
Perhaps the Saddledome will suffice for another decade, but McMahon is already at the end of its economic life.
Economic life would be important if it was a private entity that was financing a replacement asset for itself. Then it could run the projections to determine at what point it becomes economically advantageous to build something new.
Since Calgarians are being asked to pay the majority towards a new arena/stadium, we should be concerned with physical life. I don't give a #### whether McMahon makes money or not.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Canehdianman For This Useful Post:
Economic life would be important if it was a private entity that was financing a replacement asset for itself. Then it could run the projections to determine at what point it becomes economically advantageous to build something new.
Since Calgarians are being asked to pay the majority towards a new arena/stadium, we should be concerned with physical life. I don't give a #### whether McMahon makes money or not.
Economic or physical, the stadium is on its last legs. Bringing it to a modern standard will likely cost somewhere in the same ballpark as building a new facility altogether.
- Showcased what a typical week in October could have looked like, estimate numbers of people who would use it on a daily basis.
- Handle the parking questions better. How do I bring my kids to the
field house carting a box of jerseys when there is a flames game on?
.
Great post Rayne!
This is something that I've been wondering as well. Is this area going to be so congested on some nights that it's a complete hassle to get down there? If our kids are attending an event at the field house while there is an event in the Arena is there really adequate parking? I'm not taking the sports bag down on the C-train. More details would be greatly appreciated.
__________________
Yah, he's a dick, but he's our dick
The Following User Says Thank You to hummdeedoo For This Useful Post:
The video lost me as soon as it uses and associates this project with terms like "legacy", "awe and wonder" and "arts and culture".
It lost me the the second it falsely characterized the cost of the project as a 50-50 split rather then the more accurate description of 80-20 (before you even add in the cost of the environmental cleanup, loan interest, municipal infrastructure, and opportunity cost).
That is basically just a big steaming pile of bull#### that he serves up on a plate and tries to tell you it's steak.
The Following User Says Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
