^^Not that I could do better, but I am not sure the scale is correct. Looks like the Saddledome footprint is almost the same as the combined arena/fieldhouse complex.
Edit: Beaten to it.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
As a check I just overlaid the Saddledome on top of the CalgaryNEXT site without changing the zoom in Google Maps. Then stacked it up against the CalgaryNEXT rendering off their site. The dome does in fact appear to be a lot larger than the rendering represents the new arena.
So either,
a) the Saddledome has a huge footprint for an arena (very possible)
b) Google Maps is wrong (unlikely)
c) CalgaryNEXT's rendering is incorrectly scaled (I'd like to think unlikely but you never know)
d) I'm an idiot (very possible but I'm pretty sure I did it right).
Second attempt and yup, the squeeze is definitely a lot tighter. Especially when you consider that the Stadium probably needs a North-South alignment for the sun.
The Following User Says Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
Yup. He can still have a plan that is the only one he backs.
I think you confuse the word 'plan' for 'opinion' or 'preference'. Would Nenshi like these new facilities? Sure. Does he have a preference/opinion/desire for where and how they are developed? Of course. But you make it sound like he is drawing up the proposals and telling the artists where to draw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
Thanks.
Plan B, being the arena only north of current 'dome, is Nenshi's plan.
It is a fact. Not just because I say so, but because it is.
You said Nenshi's plan was to renovate McMahon...please cite where he has ever said that is anything more than a possible option?
I don't doubt that his preference is eastside of downtown (as is mine). To say it's his plan implies that he will actively try to make it happen. I don't believe he cares whether it comes to pass or not (unless Olympics are actually coming), at least not compared to other potential capital priorities.
Second attempt and yup, the squeeze is definitely a lot tighter. Especially when you consider that the Stadium probably needs a North-South alignment for the sun.
NSFW!
I doubt the spot on the west side of the grounds works - you lose the Stampede midway (which is the whole parking lot inside the grounds as well), and the structure buts right agfainst the new ag building. Though god knows the Big 4 is a tired tired building. So IMO only north of the grounds would be an option. I'm unsure of ownership of all of that area.
If that's done I'd demo the Dome to make up for it. I assume that's the plan in any event.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
Second attempt and yup, the squeeze is definitely a lot tighter. Especially when you consider that the Stadium probably needs a North-South alignment for the sun.
I did this a while ago, with my idea of putting the arena where the Big 4 is now, and the stadium where the Dome currently sits.
I know putting the arena where the Big 4 currently is was discussed around 2007.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
If they are going build both an arena and stadium, i would much rather they split them up rather than having some behemoth building.
But then you lose any synergies gained by combining building systems, back of house operations, retail etc. If we are doing both facilities at the same time, it clearly makes sense to combine them.
Your fears of a monolithic building can be attenuated by good architecture.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zarley For This Useful Post:
But then you lose any synergies gained by combining building systems, back of house operations, retail etc. If we are doing both facilities at the same time, it clearly makes sense to combine them.
Your fears of a monolithic building can be attenuated by good architecture.
But since combining such structures is not common practice, its fair to be a little concerned they wont get it right.
But since combining such structures is not common practice, its fair to be a little concerned they wont get it right.
That is my fear. Since very very few cities have attempted this model, I'm scared that it won't turn out as planned. If the idea is so good why haven't more cities attempted it?
__________________
Stanley Cup - 1989
Clarence Campbell Trophy - 1986, 1989, 2004
Presidents Trophy - 1988, 1989
William Jennings Trophy - 2006
That is my fear. Since very very few cities have attempted this model, I'm scared that it won't turn out as planned. If the idea is so good why haven't more cities attempted it?
It's better IMO to have them close but not connected. With a sweet entertainment district in between.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
As a check I just overlaid the Saddledome on top of the CalgaryNEXT site without changing the zoom in Google Maps. Then stacked it up against the CalgaryNEXT rendering off their site. The dome does in fact appear to be a lot larger than the rendering represents the new arena.
So either,
a) the Saddledome has a huge footprint for an arena (very possible)
b) Google Maps is wrong (unlikely)
c) CalgaryNEXT's rendering is incorrectly scaled (I'd like to think unlikely but you never know)
d) I'm an idiot (very possible but I'm pretty sure I did it right).
I'm guessing A is correct?
The Saddledome has a massive footprint compared to the new rinks. The ACC in Toronto for example looks tiny from the outside in comparison.
But then you lose any synergies gained by combining building systems, back of house operations, retail etc. If we are doing both facilities at the same time, it clearly makes sense to combine them.
Your fears of a monolithic building can be attenuated by good architecture.
Synergies is a buzzword created by Corporations to sell the public on something. ;-)
I don't think you are gaining that much of an advantage in all of those things. Outside of one entrance for goods and services, there still needs to be a multiplicity of shops in both concourses, supplied by the same quantity of suppliers. It's effectively going to be two separate buildings attached at the hip.
There will be some spaces that are combined for ease of use, but not near as much to bring the bottom line down to a point that justifies the risk and aesthetics.
I like the idea of great architecture that mixes in with the surrounding area. something that shows its a part of the community. Combined doesnt do that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
Replying to something over a week ago, sorry for the delay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Nenshi quote from Herald article
I was under the impression that the green line trains would be incompatible with red/blue lines. I know he isn't explicitly talking about linking the two with rail...but I guess I don't really know what he is talking about. Anyone have links to any official city planning wrt to airport lrt? Really curious where/how it would integrate into the airport
The line connecting to the airport will be compatible with either the green or blue lines (but not both). It could also be compatible with neither, as the Airport Authority had mused in the past about having their own "People Mover" type system, which would likely be a fully automated system with a connection to either the blue or green lines, or both.
The topic was briefly touched upon in the Northeast LRT Functional Plan, which lays out the plan to extend the Blue Line northeast by 4 stations.
Here are the possibilities on the Blue Line end:
Basically, it's the possible combinations of: connect directly to the airport or not; and operate as a spur of the Blue Line or not.
My guess is that the airport LRT will directly connect to the airport terminal (i.e., do the "U" shaped loop) and also be a spur line of the Blue Line at the 88th Avenue Station (Option 1B). It will then have a connection with transfer to the 96th Avenue Green Line Station.
As far as priorities go, I think it would/should look like:
1. Green Line
2. Northeast LRT Extension (88 Ave. and Country Hills Blvd. Stations)
3. West LRT Extension to Aspen Woods.
4. South LRT Extension (Silverado and 210th Ave. Stations, plus LRV Storage and Maintenance Facility)
5. Airport LRT Connection
6. 8th Avenue Subway
7. Future (17th Ave. SE, MRU spur, etc.)
This is not including BRT projects (SW BRT, 17th Avenue SE BRT with transitway, North Crosstown, South Crosstown). Most of these will be done around the same time as Green Line, if not be finished before.
Some circumstances could change this, such as the Olympics or the Airport Authority committing to funding part of the Airport LRT Connection. Also, 2-4 could move around and/or be done around the same time.
The connectivity options between Green Line, Airport and Blue Line will have to be studied further (as alluded to by Muta below).
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
There already is an RFP out for a functional study of the blue line being extended to the airport, with six new stations along the way.
There is some actual work behind what Nenshi is saying, and it's been out since before he said it. From my view, this is further along than most people probably think.
Last edited by frinkprof; 12-21-2016 at 10:53 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
Why would they have a 210th ave and a Silverado Station. That seems like making the same Shawnessy / Somerset problem of the station being two close together. The city is linking Silverado to 210th ave so the main exits will be across the 22x from Bridlewood, 210th ave and James Mckevit. Having another station just seems like a waste of Capital.
