Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

First tier fan believes Calgary taxpayers should kick in for the building but don't deserve to be heard unless they're STH. You're not related to Kevin Lowe are you?

I am fully aware that I am fortunate to be able to be a STH. And as I already said, it's my choice. And I fully expect some people to not agree with my view.

If you have anything useful to contribute, please do. But don't put words in my mouth and then insult me for something I didn't say.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol, okay let's agree to disagree on that

fair enough, but I am curious, which grade do you disagree with more? Do you think it will go from a D to a B+?

I'll reiterate that the experiences I am talking about are:
- getting into the building
- getting from the door to your seat
- purchasing concessions
- accessing and using the bathroom
- sitting in a seat
- leaving the building

Am I missing anything?

There are of course tons of other things like sight lines, acoustics, screens, in-arena tech, inverted-bowl concept, etc., but they are not often listed as current complaints, or are unproven/not even guaranteed to be included in the new project.


I can certainly imagine how all of the things I listed above could be much, much worse than current, but I don't see how they can become anything more than slightly less inconvenient?

[Enoch Root]

Pretty much every one of those items, including things like acoustics and in-arena tech, can be - and are - significantly improved upon.

Most of these things are significantly better, or less annoying, in most other arenas.

I agree with part of your point, being that there is little reason to have a new arena if these, and other issues, aren't improved. But I strongly disagree with your assertion that they likely won't be.

[getbak]

Not specifically arena related, but part of the Stampede and Rivers District, it looks like Council has tentatively approved the BMO Centre expansion, conditional upon the federal government signing off on paying 1/3 of the cost and the CRL being approved for the provincial funding portion.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...sion-1.4950137


This rendering is a concept for the Corral replacement.




If approved, construction could begin early in the New Year. I assume the first phase will be the addition of the sixth hall beside the Casino before the Corral meets its demise.

[442scotty]

Maybe Im just old and boring but this city sure likes its weird looking architecture which of course probably doubles the price and becomes dated real quick. Not to mention ugly... Just my opinion of course. Id love to see if that exterior can last more than 10 years in our climate.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Maybe Im just old and boring but this city sure likes its weird looking architecture which of course probably doubles the price and becomes dated real quick. Not to mention ugly... Just my opinion of course. Id love to see if that exterior can last more than 10 years in our climate.

You are just old and boring.

We definitely need more square boxes and bland architecture. My goodness.. that new library. Gonna be really sad in 2028 when the exterior falls apart, eh!?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Do you think the arena experience is a really, really significant factor in renewal rates? The economy and on-ice product seem a lot more likely to be the culprit. It's worth noting the arena experience is relatively consistent over the years, while the other two factors are much more variable...it seems like an awfully big stretch to attribute renewal decreases to a building that has not changed, when both the team and economy have been poor. Assuming the on-ice stays strong through a decent playoff run, do you not think STH's will return next season, even if the economy remains unchanged or gets worse? If the Flames are smart, they'll sell this year's playoff & 2019-20 season packages together, and bring back a great many that they lost. For anyone with the means and interest, the building is not going to be the thing that holds them back.


And yes, I will give you credit for accurately identifying my point, that the current arena is good enough. My other point is, that if today's arena isn't good enough, tomorrow's arena won't be, either.

Put another way, if you ignore the on-ice product and anything not directly related to the building and it's logisitcal operation, an average grading of today's arena experience probably comes in around a C- for most people. I think it is highly unlikely that this grade will go any higher than a C+ for most people with a new building, even if you don't factor in the increased prices. For the 15000 cheapest seats in an arena, there is simply a ceiling to how 'enjoyable' the process of entering, competing for food & bathrooms, sitting shoulder to shoulder with others, and leaving is going to be. The only way to make it a lot better would be dropping to ~7000 'first-class' seats at twice the cost (and maybe 0-3000 cheaper seats for the unwashed masses); this might not have been totally insane a few years ago, but obviously not tenable now, nor is it a good look if you're trying to get public money).

It's a little bit like flying...look at the new airport terminal. It's a little cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing than the old one, and does have quite a few improvements...but there are just as many new problems with it. The overall experience of getting from your house to the airplane door is not noticeably improved. We can complain all we want, and of course there are plenty of things they could have done better, but at the end of the day you're going to be herded through various procedures like cattle, then wait in a holding pen before getting into your metal tube.


What gives you confidence that CSEC will lead us to a venue that is significantly better than Edmonton's new arena or the Saddledome?

So I attended a game and also a concert at T-Mobile in Vegas, which is the same vintage as Edmonton's rink. I've also been in the latter, though not for a game. Let me tell you, if they follow the Vegas design, it's way more than a C+. Entry and exit, seating and concession options, concourse, washroom facilities and sightlines were tremendous. And that's all aside from the Parq entertainment district, which could also be replicated (and which isn't in Edmonton).

[ST20]

I think what some people miss out on is that a new arena and related facilities not only impacts customer experience but also player experience as well. It is probably not near the top of their list when they choose to places to go but it's definitely a factor in decision making as it would be with anyone choosing their next place to work.

Another sport; but when Mark Cuban bought the Maverick's they were a joke. He upgraded everything from the arena, locker rooms to their flight experience and practice facilities. Dallas Maverick's became a destination for free agents and the guys in their system had a better experience developing into legit NBA players.

Now I'm not saying getting a new arena will make the team better instantly but it's one factor in many that shouldn't be ignored. As iconic as the coliseum was in Long island I don't think players enjoyed playing in a broken down and out dated barn. I'm not sure any team with lasting success in any sport plays in an arena other stadium that hasn't been rennovated or rebuilt. The arena is a reflection of the organization to the players as a nice office downtown or a broken down office anywhere else would be an office worker.

Now as for who and how it should be paid for? I'm not getting into that debate although most of it should come from the owners.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Maybe Im just old and boring but this city sure likes its weird looking architecture which of course probably doubles the price and becomes dated real quick. Not to mention ugly... Just my opinion of course. Id love to see if that exterior can last more than 10 years in our climate.

I respect your opinion, but you're off on pretty much all fronts here.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Muta

I respect your opinion, but you're off on pretty much all fronts here.

Why would you respect the opinion of someone who has clearly no ####ing clue what they are talking about when it comes to architecture and engineering.

"won't last in our climate" says guy who has no training in the area.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by soreshins

50-70 year life is pure fantasy. 30-35 years is a good guess.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Hockey arena with 70 year life, as an NHL arena? Other than MSG, which has been totally rebuilt, I can’t think of any. Which ones are you referring to? If you’re thinking about arenas like the original Boston Garden, that’s a different era. And millions upon millions were poured into those old arenas after they were built so the payback calculation doesn’t work.



All we are hearing is that the Saddledome is the oldest NHL arena and needs replacing. It’s 35 years old.

My understanding is that all arenas had to be replaced with the advent of luxury boxes. Since the next generation of arenas were built, every arena has been replaced except for the saddledome. And since the luxury box arena has been built, none have been replafed. Prior to luxury boxes being a huge enough incentive to replace the buildings, arenas like the forum and Maple leaf gardens lasted 70 years and 69 years respectively. The new stadiums you see around the league should stand the test of time.

The saddledome is dated primarily because they can't squeeze in another 50-100 luxury boxes. Had it been built just 5-10 years later, there wouldn't even be a discussion around it because it would have been designed with luxry boxes in mind

[username]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Do you think the arena experience is a really, really significant factor in renewal rates?

It is literally the reason that myself and group of 7 other friends cancelled a couple years ago.

I don't pay 10K a year just to watch hockey, it's a night out and if it's not enjoyable then why are spending 10K? Just watch it on tv in the comfort of your own home.

[442scotty]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why would you respect the opinion of someone who has clearly no ####ing clue what they are talking about when it comes to architecture and engineering.

"won't last in our climate" says guy who has no training in the area.

I love it how some people on here get all bent out of shape when they read something that doesn’t mesh with their views.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Maybe Im just old and boring but this city sure likes its weird looking architecture which of course probably doubles the price and becomes dated real quick. Not to mention ugly... Just my opinion of course. Id love to see if that exterior can last more than 10 years in our climate.

The kind of thinking that brought us utilitarian marvels like this:

[marsplasticeraser]

We can improve a lot of the issues for fans without new arena.

The fact is you can solve most if not all of the fan issues with an expansion and using some tech to eliminate bottlenecks.

Step 1: Build two large, multi-level expansions on North/South of Saddledome and use these as the location for all food/beverage and increased washrooms with larger entry/exit points. (You can use the Lowest level for additional player facilities if required).

Step 2: Improve the main entrance (moving food service allows you to open up the area surrounding main entrance). Develop a large landscaped gathering place where grass is. Consider eliminating elevated walkway.

Step 3: Make existing concourse only for movement to/from entrance/food hall to seats. This gets rid of the lines that clog up the concourse.

Step 4: Use one of the existing (or create your own) mobile ordering apps. Fans place their order for the intermission during the period, so all fans are doing is pick-up. Payment is on app, so time to get served drops 75%+ and food services are more productive. There is no reason why this isn't done now, other than I get the impression the Flames brass are not that comfortable with technology.

Step 5: Save $400mm to $500mm of public money.

The only downside is the owners don't get more luxury boxes and they can't increase ticket prices as high. Also, maybe we don't get big-time concerts and acoustics aren't great.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Pretty much every one of those items, including things like acoustics and in-arena tech, can be - and are - significantly improved upon.

Most of these things are significantly better, or less annoying, in most other arenas.

I agree with part of your point, being that there is little reason to have a new arena if these, and other issues, aren't improved. But I strongly disagree with your assertion that they likely won't be.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why would you respect the opinion of someone who has clearly no ####ing clue what they are talking about when it comes to architecture and engineering.

"won't last in our climate" says guy who has no training in the area.

Because it's his opinion, its as valid as mine (despite my opinion of it), and I don't hate him for it?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The kind of thinking that brought us utilitarian marvels like this:

That looks like the Concrete dome they put over the Chernobyl reactor.

[Robbob]

Oh that is Rexall. Looking at the second picture, all I could think of is how big of a dump that bird took.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by getbak

Not specifically arena related, but part of the Stampede and Rivers District, it looks like Council has tentatively approved the BMO Centre expansion, conditional upon the federal government signing off on paying 1/3 of the cost and the CRL being approved for the provincial funding portion.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...sion-1.4950137


This rendering is a concept for the Corral replacement.



If approved, construction could begin early in the New Year. I assume the first phase will be the addition of the sixth hall beside the Casino before the Corral meets its demise.

The perspective on this is from roughly the Dutton's entrance to the Dome today? Obviously it's not the intention of the rendering, but it will be interesting to see what the connection of 17 Ave and Olympic Way aka. Stampede Trail looks like at this location.

Originally Posted by username

It is literally the reason that myself and group of 7 other friends cancelled a couple years ago.

I don't pay 10K a year just to watch hockey, it's a night out and if it's not enjoyable then why are spending 10K? Just watch it on tv in the comfort of your own home.

Fair enough; I'll concede that the logistical elements are more important to others than me (understandably if you go 40+ times a year compared to my half dozen). That said, I still think there is a pretty low ceiling on how much better it can be for the top half of the building, and you will still be paying higher costs for every inch of improvement.

I've seen nothing so far that gives me any confidence that CSEC has a great plan or desire to solve these issues really effectively for the masses. I have no doubt the luxury box and lower bowl experience will be greatly enhanced, though (of course the lower bowl will get much bigger).

I'm just not keen on subsidizing this.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by Locke

That looks like the Concrete dome they put over the Chernobyl reactor.

The results inside were equally as disastrous over the past decade