[News] Calgary City Council votes 11-4 to approve event centre deal

[Toonage]

There was a quote on the Rossetti website from Ken King talking about looking forward to working with them. Its been there a while but I can't find it at the moment. Anyway, seems to me like an agreement was struck for this design well in advance of the deal with the city. I assume a "if/when we get this, we'll work with you" arrangement.

[Fuzz]

I'm curious about the geometry of the upper levels. The video shows them all moving inward, but wouldn't this reduce the diameter of the upper levels substantially, reducing numbers of seats? I know it's just a concept demonstration, but it seems to me you would have to add a lot of rows of seating above to make up for those lost by the reduced area.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Toonage

There was a quote on the Rossetti website from Ken King talking about looking forward to working with them. Its been there a while but I can't find it at the moment. Anyway, seems to me like an agreement was struck for this design well in advance of the deal with the city. I assume a "if/when we get this, we'll work with you" arrangement.

It's here:
https://www.rossetti.com/work/projec...nment-district

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

And it is almost guaranteed that the city would not rezone for a stadium.

The bus barns land is the most valuable land in Victoria Park. The city is looking to maximize property tax uplift from the event center.

Building a stadium on the prime land that will contribute little or no property taxes for the city hurts the economic benefit the city projected for the event center and CRL.

Yup, very true. The selling point of the events centre is its ability to draw other construction - tax-profitable construction - into the area. You lose that argument when you sell your most valuable parcel for another stadium.

As far as McMahon replacement goes, my personal thought is they should just rebuild McMahon where it is, basically like so many European soccer stadiums have: one end at a time.

[Toonage]

Many thanks Fuzz!

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yup, very true. The selling point of the events centre is its ability to draw other construction - tax-profitable construction - into the area. You lose that argument when you sell your most valuable parcel for another stadium.

As far as McMahon replacement goes, my personal thought is they should just rebuild McMahon where it is, basically like so many European soccer stadiums have: one end at a time.

As long as phase one is tearing up the field and flattening the playing surface, I think this is a good idea.

[puckedoff]

I'm not entirely sold on the inverted bowl idea. Isn't there a risk that fans pass out from the blood rushing to their heads?

[Fuzz]

One of the other issues I've seen mentioned is that as you move those upper tiers in, the sight lines get significantly steeper, so each one of the cantilevered sections will have to be very steep. The top rows even more so.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm curious about the geometry of the upper levels. The video shows them all moving inward, but wouldn't this reduce the diameter of the upper levels substantially, reducing numbers of seats? I know it's just a concept demonstration, but it seems to me you would have to add a lot of rows of seating above to make up for those lost by the reduced area.

Yes, this design does seem to reduce the overall amount of seats...which is the trade off for the better "experience". So yeah, say goodbye to cheap seats.

[lazypucker]

Where else is there an "inverted bowl" arena currently in operation?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yes, this design does seem to reduce the overall amount of seats...which is the trade off for the better "experience". So yeah, say goodbye to cheap seats.

Didn't they say it is going to be 19 000 seats though?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Where else is there an "inverted bowl" arena currently in operation?

Nowhere, which is why I'm a little hesitant about being the first. Could be awesome, could be a disaster.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Where else is there an "inverted bowl" arena currently in operation?

There isn't. It's a brand new design. Though the new Los Angeles arena for the Clippers - currently stuck in legal limbo - is planned to use this design. It is entirely possible we will have the first to open.

[_Q_]

To be quite honest, the inverted bowl design feels weird and unnatural. So the higher up you are, the steeper the angle is to the action. Yes the top seats might be closer, but you'll also be getting an almost bird's eye view of the game. It doesn't seem very enjoyable honestly.

I've been to some newer arenas and the view from the nose bleeds is never that bad. The inverted bowl design seems to be attempting to fix a non existent problem honestly.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm curious about the geometry of the upper levels. The video shows them all moving inward, but wouldn't this reduce the diameter of the upper levels substantially, reducing numbers of seats? I know it's just a concept demonstration, but it seems to me you would have to add a lot of rows of seating above to make up for those lost by the reduced area.

Not really. The big thing in modern arena design is very large lower bowls and much smaller upper. So mentally, think of the Saddledome and make the 200 level the lower bowl, and the 100 level the upper. There's 16 rows of seating in the lower bowl (including the two seating rows in the suites). Then with this design, you break that into four balconies of four rows, stacked on top of each other.

Rossetti says this design is ideal for an arena with a capacity of about 16-19,000. Since the Flames have always promoted an arena with a capacity in the 18-19k range, we would fit with this design.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by _Q_

To be quite honest, the inverted bowl design feels weird and unnatural. So the higher up you are, the steeper the angle is to the action. Yes the top seats might be closer, but you'll also be getting an almost bird's eye view of the game. It doesn't seem very enjoyable honestly.

I've been to some newer arenas and the view from the nose bleeds is never that bad. The inverted bowl design seems to be attempting to fix a non existent problem honestly.

I think the opposite, best part of the old Montreal forum and old Boston garden was how steep the upper decks were

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Didn't they say it is going to be 19 000 seats though?

"Up to". I doubt it would reach that with an inverted bowl.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's here:
https://www.rossetti.com/work/projec...nment-district

Yeah, they've been working with the Flames on some preliminary stuff, which is normal. They're in no way the final architect, however. I'd take that KK quote with a grain of salt and nothing more.

[jaydaybay]

Originally Posted by stone hands

i dunno, the dome is a library most of the time, i dont think the arrangement of the seats is going to do much for noise unless they give everyone megaphones

Part of the reason the dome feels like a library at times, in my opinion, is because of the roof and general shape or arena. It can be loud, sure, but all things equal it will never be as loud as barns that dont have a roof with weird geometrics and dead spots everywhere. Takes away from the atmosphere.

A building can create a better, louder atmosphere with good acoustics. Rowdy atmospheres are contagious in that if it’s inherently loud people are more inclined to get involved.

[Toonage]

Isn't Little Caesar's Arena using some aspects of the inverted bowl? Like a tester of sorts? Just the upper bowl or something along those lines?