[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I agree. But what most people gleaned in terms of detail is the new McMahon will have a closed, if translucent, roof.

With the dough that's being thrown at this project, most people, including myself, would like the pitch section of the roof to be retractable. Glendale-esque.

I'm not sure "most people" is accurate.

I would also be interested to know in the poll what % of answers are from people who live in Calgary vs elsewhere.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by habernac

Montrealers actually use their amazing transit system because you can get everywhere there on the train. Here, everyone is still married to their cars.

Ridership is huge on the metro (2 M per day). There is basically no parking for the Bell Centre and it is not much issue - except for those from the west island.
Had Montreal added a West Island, including airport, leg to the metro - Montreal traffic nightmares might almost cease to exist. The english here will tell you it's no coincidence that the west island (predominantly english) is under serviced.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Cappy

so insightful

I responded several times that the City is not committing more than the original $200MM for the field house, and have not seen anything that suggests they are, or have even been asked to.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I'm not sure "most people" is accurate.

I think it is. Given the choice, most people would prefer a stadium with a retractable roof to a closed dome, all else being equal.

I don't think I'm wrong there.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I think it is. Given the choice, most people would prefer a stadium with a retractable roof to a closed dome, all else being equal.

I don't think I'm wrong there.

Just based off the poll above and the reactions in the thread I would say you are wrong.

Also all things are not equal. Yes if it was the same cost then sure retractable roof, but the cost isn't the same so that isn't valid.

[JohnnyT]

I'm up and down on this proposal. I like the location and the idea of an arena and stadium combined into one. I think a project this size is the only type of project that can spark west village remediation. However like other people have mentioned I'm not sure if it's the best location for an ametuer fieldhouse. I can understand the flames pushing for more use of public transit, the C-train is the easiest way to get to a game from my area in signal hill anyways so that doesn't change much for me, though I'm surprised they wouldn't build a parkade in the CRL zone with a couple thousand stalls. I don't think city transit makes as much sense for the field house/community rink. Are mom and dads going to ride the ctrain with football gear and their kids on Thursday nights? Maybe it will work but from the outset it doesn't seem like the best idea.

I wonder if the flames would have gotten more support if they pitched the arena stadium combo as partially funding a joint fieldhouse/practice facility for the flames/stamps that would be open to the public with gym facilities and courts like they mentioned in the presentation in a different location. This is essentially what the Habs have in their practice facility in Broussard which is across the river from the bell centre. It has 2 rinks and a turf soccer field that are rented out to various leagues as well as other training facilities

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Just based off the poll above and the reactions in the thread I would say you are wrong.

I honestly think the poll shouldn't have come out immediately. Give people some time to get over the initial "excitement" and then give their thoughts.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I agree. But what most people gleaned in terms of detail is the new McMahon will have a closed, if translucent, roof.

With the dough that's being thrown at this project, most people, including myself, would like the pitch section of the roof to be retractable. Glendale-esque.

Are you suggesting most got that from the concept drawings? Did they also think the arena would have seats cut off 3/4 of the way around?

The Glendale stadium was $455M USD in 2003-2006. I dunno what that is in 2017 CDN dollars. But it's a lot.

[J79]

Out of curiousity, regarding this project; what does 'ticket tax' mean?

[Russic]

Originally Posted by J79

Out of curiousity, regarding this project; what does 'ticket tax' mean?

Similar to an airport upgrade fee, every ticket to events would have something like a 10% fee added on. It's a way of generating tax revenue without taxing people who aren't using the facilities.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by J79

Out of curiousity, regarding this project; what does 'ticket tax' mean?

It is a surcharge on a ticket to an event at the arena or stadium.
It is currently in place at the 'dome, as tickets have a a Saddledome Foundation Fee on top of them (or built in, depending).

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Are you suggesting most got that from the concept drawings? Did they also think the arena would have seats cut off 3/4 of the way around?

The Glendale stadium was $455M USD in 2003-2006. I dunno what that is in 2017 CDN dollars. But it's a lot.

Obviously the the concept drawing was bare-bones. But there was no mention at all by KK the roof would be retractable. Only that it would be translucent. I realize the retractable roof costs more.

What I am suggesting is that given a choice, most people would prefer a retractable roof. Why would you not (besides cost)? If the game is played on a beautiful evening, wouldn't you want a nice breeze? If its freezing and snowing, close the roof.


EDIT: The Cards stadium also has the fancy removable pitch, adding quite a bit of cost.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Russic

Similar to an airport upgrade fee, every ticket to events would have something like a 10% fee added on. It's a way of generating tax revenue without taxing people who aren't using the facilities.

Yup. It's just a surcharge on the tickets.

One thing I thought of with having the city front that portion of the cost instead of the Flames going to a commercial lender, is that I would expect the ticket tax would not count as HRR. If the Flames go to traditional lenders and try to add a "ticket tax" themselves, the union would cry that it is an attempt to hide revenue.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Obviously the the concept drawing was bare-bones. But there was no mention at all by KK the roof would be retractable. Only that it would be translucent. I realize the retractable roof costs more.

What I am suggesting is that given a choice, most people would prefer a retractable roof. Why would you not (besides cost)? If the game is played on a beautiful evening, wouldn't you want a nice breeze? If its freezing and snowing, close the roof.

It's 100% cost related without a doubt. My issue is that I don't think most people think it should be retractable like you are saying. I don't think the cost of the retractable roof outweighs the benefits of it, and I actually attend football games. Not to pick on you but since you are pretty vocal about it how many games do you plan on attending?

Not only that but the field house will 100% of the time have the roof shut, so all we are talking about having a retractable roof for is 11 or so Stamps games. The added cost is not worth it.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I responded several times that the City is not committing more than the original $200MM for the field house, and have not seen anything that suggests they are, or have even been asked to.

Then, no offence, but you are an ignorant or just being selective, because it has been pretty well established in this forum.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

When will Thanks be turned back on? It's gonna take me forever to go back through this thread and thank every Jay Random post.

It works in Tapatalk.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Obviously the the concept drawing was bare-bones. But there was no mention at all by KK the roof would be retractable. Only that it would be translucent. I realize the retractable roof costs more.

What I am suggesting is that given a choice, most people would prefer a retractable roof. Why would you not (besides cost)? If the game is played on a beautiful evening, wouldn't you want a nice breeze? If its freezing and snowing, close the roof.

Can they close the roof pretty quickly? My understanding is that it takes a while to close up rectractable roofs, so you'd be unable to respond quickly to Calgary's crazy weather patterns anyways.

Outdoor is nice but Calgary isn't California. The events going ahead as scheduled and uninterrupted is more important, as is attendee comfort. I've only ever been to one Stamps game (last year's western final) and probably won't go again knowing I could just watch on tv in the warmth of my home instead of freezing my arse off at McMahon. A nice indoor stadium could entice me to more games.

If its a translucent roof and allows plenty of natural light you get the best of both worlds anyways.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think the fieldhouse and stadium should still be combined as in the next post showing where the money goes, the savings seem to be where they combine those two facilities.

As someone else mentions it seems to be a place where you go straight to the game and then leave. Separating the stadium-fieldhouse from the arena could leave some space for bars and restaurants where fans can relax before and after the game.

Agreed. The Flames would argue that the building's themselves would contain those facilities but I have little faith we would get anything other than enlarged versions of what we have today. Garbage banquet food and a dozen different types of american adjunct lagers.


Now that I have had a chance to sleep on it...
Maybe it's just because there was pretty much zero information about the arena, I am most disappointed with the Stadium. Combining the stadium and field house is a interesting idea but what was shown suffers from being squeezed in-between bow trail for the sake of not having to deal with road infrastructure. Having an unbalanced seating bowl to accommodate shadowing bylaws for the river pathways. Convention centre feel inside to accommodate field house requirements. So many accommodations. We'll never see a translucent roof with an east-west oriented stadium.

I know that it's a vision but such a terrible render. This is what I would have assumed we'd have seen 2 years ago.

[bizaro86]

I went to the event yesterday, and think this is a reasonable plan, although details are a bit sparse.

The one thing I really don't like is not moving Bow Trail. That's a missed opportunity to open up the river front. I'd envision a concourse lined with restaurants, with the restaurants all having patios fronting the river. They'd also get use on non-event days then, and it would make it a destination area to attract additional development. I really hope we don't half ass this and then regret it later.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

It's 100% cost related without a doubt. My issue is that I don't think most people think it should be retractable like you are saying. I don't think the cost of the retractable roof outweighs the benefits of it, and I actually attend football games. Not to pick on you but since you are pretty vocal about it how many games do you plan on attending?

Not only that but the field house will 100% of the time have the roof shut, so all we are talking about having a retractable roof for is 11 or so Stamps games. The added cost is not worth it.

I do plan on returning to live in Calgary at some point in my life, but in the near future, 0 Stamps games Once you all settle this damn mess, I'll return and enjoy the benefits

However! I was talking about just preferences. Let's say CSE is generous and decided to pay the whole damn stadium by themselves. Would you not prefer a retractable roof to a enclosed dome? I would think that most folks would prefer the option of having an indoor or outdoor venue just by flicking a switch.