When your team is sucking badly and you have your head down in your beer, you can still see everything!
Unless the person in front of you is leaning forward slightly. It's annoying with traditional setups. Throw people straight up like that and it'll be chaos!
Unless the person in front of you is leaning forward slightly. It's annoying with traditional setups. Throw people straight up like that and it'll be chaos!
QC's new arena has an extremely steep upper bowl, might not be the case anymore but IIRC it was the steepest in the world when it was built. Anyone have any personal experiences with the building? I've never heard any complaints about sightlines from people on HFB and the like but it's not something I've actively hunted around for. I would think if anything that much vertical rise would reduce the issue of people below you blocking your view.
Last edited by CorbeauNoir; 10-13-2017 at 10:08 AM.
Would the C of Red look less impressive in an inverted bowl?
Yes. Box suites will create large gaps between sections (see Edmonton). The dome currently has the 2nd tier almost seamless with the 1st tear. All the fans are tight to the ice.
C of RED
Spoiler!
vs. "Orange CRUSH" (lol):
Spoiler!
The Following User Says Thank You to RM14 For This Useful Post:
The lower bowl would be larger in a new building so the C of Red would look the same on TV I think. In person, maybe a bit different. LED rings would cover the gaps with red graphics etc I assume.
QC's new arena has an extremely steep upper bowl, might not be the case anymore but IIRC it was the steepest in the world when it was built. Anyone have any personal experiences with the building? I've never heard any complaints about sightlines from people on HFB and the like but it's not something I've actively hunted around for. I would think if anything that much vertical rise would reduce the issue of people below you blocking your view.
I think you need some run to match the rise. Rise is good, but even their infographic has the people at the top in the inverted deck's sightline going right into the back of somebody's head.
I think you need some run to match the rise. Rise is good, but even their infographic has the people at the top in the inverted deck's sightline going right into the back of somebody's head.
I really wouldn't put much stock into sightlines just based on that. I can tell you from experience that a staggering amount of things can be altered in the lifespan of an architectural project, even while the thing is in the process of being physically constructed. This is an extremely preliminary brainstorming session promoting a layout concept, dialing down things like height clearances comes much later on. If anything you WANT the visuals to be relatively simple and vague at this point, especially for a large public-scaled project like this. It invites feedback and alternative ideas which can then be used to move towards something that becomes increasingly believable. If you hand people something that looks finished and ready to build right on day one it gives the impression that it's set in stone and can't be altered.
For all anyone knows some obscure scheduling or supply issue far down the line might force them to scrap the concept entirely anyway. Going back to QC, they had initially promoted it as an architectural revolution in what could be done with large-scale wood construction and virtually all of that element got binned when it came time to actually supply materials and get it built.
Last edited by CorbeauNoir; 10-13-2017 at 10:52 AM.
I don't think it would be that bad. Probably would be similar to the press box in the saddledome right now. If it is good enough to call a game from that angle, watching should be just fine.
The first row, sure. But how many rows can you go back before your experience is significantly diminished?
Again, tough to say at this point as this is all a concept, but it does give some pause.
The fight over an arena in Calgary's Victoria Park encapsulates a debate cities around the world have over what spurs development, attracts businesses and enhances lifestyles.
"Due to the significant impact of success or failure in moving this project forward, it is important that all stakeholders including council have all the facts with which to make this important decision," Ken King, president of the organization which controls the Flames, wrote in his July 28 letter. "We do not wish to negotiate with city council during this meeting but rather inform.
"The meeting will afford council and Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation an opportunity to understand each other's position and opportunities to move forward," said the letter, obtained by The Globe and Mail.
A handful of people who participated in the July 31 meeting have described it to The Globe. Further, individuals on both sides of the debate have made public comments about the private gathering since the warring camps started negotiating publicly in September.
The evening meeting began in council's new boardroom. Mr. King stood on the podium and did most of the speaking on behalf of the Flames. The owners sat on the periphery of the room. Flames' executives, city bureaucrats, and the mayor's chief of staff were also there.
Tension escalated when the mayor and some councillors challenged the Flames' financial calculations and the fact the club refused to open its books throughout the negotiations. Mr. Nenshi, in particular, pressed the ownership group. Then it got testy between him and Murray Edwards, the billionaire oilman who is the most powerful member of the Flames' owners.
"Both the mayor and Murray are snipers," one of the sources said. "The little shots and the interrupting and stuff – yes … definitely it was between both of them."
snappy," another source said. "And both of them are totally like that."
Ms. Colley-Urquhart's recollection of the tone is similar except she remembers it as being one-sided. "I just found that the way Murray Edwards was treated was disrespectful and condescending," she said. Druh Farrell, another municipal politician seeking her sixth term at city hall, described the exchanges as tense but said council was "respectful" and the mayor was "remarkably restrained."
The descriptions of Mr. Nenshi interjecting and perhaps agitating are consistent with his style, which is now a ballot-box issue. Mr. Nenshi's challengers are trying to exploit his freewheeling approach, arguing the stalled arena negotiations prove his running commentary is harmful to the city.
Flames owners gambled, and lost. Although got some new faces in council. Either way, they didn't get the guy they wanted. So what's their next move now?
Flames owners gambled, and lost. Although got some new faces in council. Either way, they didn't get the guy they wanted. So what's their next move now?
Flames owners gambled, and lost. Although got some new faces in council. Either way, they didn't get the guy they wanted. So what's their next move now?
Innsbruck held a referendum on the weekend and voted against bidding for the 2026 Olympics. Of the four cities that have expressed serious interest in hosting 2026, it's now down to Calgary and Sion, Switzerland.
How desperate will the IOC get? They've apparently offered some big concessions to LA to host 2028. Could a similar deal be on the table for Calgary?
I expect to see a press conference with a smiling King & Nenshi supporting Calgary's Olympic bid with a show piece arena in the next few months.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Innsbruck held a referendum on the weekend and voted against bidding for the 2026 Olympics. Of the four cities that have expressed serious interest in hosting 2026, it's now down to Calgary and Sion, Switzerland.
How desperate will the IOC get? They've apparently offered some big concessions to LA to host 2028. Could a similar deal be on the table for Calgary?
I expect to see a press conference with a smiling King & Nenshi supporting Calgary's Olympic bid with a show piece arena in the next few months.
The IOC would probably love Switzerland to get back to the games but man Sion would be a logistics nightmare, it's about the size of Okotoks and about a 2 hour drive to either Bern or Geneva, unless they're only hosting the alpine events ala Whistler I can't see it.
The IOC would probably love Switzerland to get back to the games but man Sion would be a logistics nightmare, it's about the size of Okotoks and about a 2 hour drive to either Bern or Geneva, unless they're only hosting the alpine events ala Whistler I can't see it.
Yeah, their proposed bid would basically have the entire Olympics scattered all over Switzerland, with most events 1-2 hours away from Sion (and also that far apart from each other).
Figure skating/short track is proposed to be in Lausanne. Hockey would be in Bern and Biel. The sliding events would be at the same track that was used in the 1928 and 1948 Games in St Moritz (and people complain about re-using the track from 1988), which is over 5 hours from Sion by car and 6 hours by train.
It's weird that they're putting Sion's name on the bid (apparently, other larger cities declined) since it would really only host the Opening and Closing Ceremonies.
This is their current proposed venue map...
Spoiler!
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
