New Downtown Calgary Arena

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

L.A. Live doesn't empty out until well after 1:00 in the morning, even when nobody is playing. Any new stadium is going to be planned as an entertainment district rather than as a stand-alone building with acres of surface parking. It will be a destination itself.

They certainly can't put something like that at Firestone. Definitely not with a stadium involved. Between those footprints and required parking you're not going to have much more room for anything people would want to go to.

This also ignores how areas don't generate new entertainment spending, only directs it. Why would we want to direct all this entertainment spending to Firestone and not downtown where the focus has been to liven up in the past 10-20 years?

And LA Live is pretty close to downtown LA.

And by the time there is a SELRT, we're going to be debating the location of the next Flames arena.

People in the SE still take the current LRT to games. These new arenas have pretty long life spans (they need to be for what they cost) so you're looking at 50+ years based on what leases the teams who built new arenas in the early 90s are signing on to. They'll at least have a transitway by then I'd hope.

[Policy Wonk]

In the 1970's the redevelopment of the Firestone plant was a subject of much interest. There was to be a hockey arena known as the "Don MacKay Centre" that was to anchor a development that included a mall, an aquarium for the Calgary Zoo, a hotel and convention centre and a concert hall. A "second downtown" conveniently enough linked by C-Train.

[*Stardust*]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Ken King will normally write back but I'm not sure that writing him about locations is of any benefit. If after 7+ years they haven't picked a site by now we may as well concede to playing in the dome for another 25 years.

Do you know how long he takes to write back? Maybe he could drop some hints

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

You couldn't build a very big TOD on that site with an arena or stadium never mind both so the relative lack of amenities would just create a place where people commute in and commute out as quickly as possible (which wouldn't be quick at all really because everybody who lives in the southeast, southwest and northwest would be standing on the same platform waiting for the same train) and because you've completely isolated the population that would be willing to walk to a downtown arena but now can't walk to Firestone.

Exactly, there's no synergies with Firestone, nothing notable around there.

A large Fieldhouse, Stadium, arena plus whatever other venues require a super regional draw with location that is most convenient to the most amount of people - inner city.

Plus their primary markets (corporate, people with higher disposable income) are almost all inner city plus west side of the city. Firestone just sounds ridiculous, not opposed to a TOD there though.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

L.A. Live doesn't empty out until well after 1:00 in the morning, even when nobody is playing. Any new stadium is going to be planned as an entertainment district rather than as a stand-alone building with acres of surface parking. It will be a destination itself.

And by the time there is a SELRT, we're going to be debating the location of the next Flames arena.

Which brings up the question: if it goes West Village will the stampede entertainment district be dead as a doornail?

[*Stardust*]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Which brings up the question: if it goes West Village will the stampede entertainment district be dead as a doornail?

An entertainment district would most likely have a Casino I'm guessing. It would make more sense to have it closer to the Cowboys Casino, Elbow River Casino and the Big Four. Having it out in West Village would be so out of place.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

An entertainment district would most likely have a Casino I'm guessing. It would make more sense to have it closer to the Cowboys Casino, Elbow River Casino and the Big Four. Having it out in West Village would be so out of place.

Or the Flames owners would build it on their own land and retain 100% of the revenue and just shrug at the notion of you thinking it being out of place

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

A large Fieldhouse, Stadium, arena plus whatever other venues require a super regional draw with location that is most convenient to the most amount of people - inner city.

Plus their primary markets (corporate, people with higher disposable income) are almost all inner city plus west side of the city. Firestone just sounds ridiculous, not opposed to a TOD there though.

A Flames arena would be just as well attended if it were built next to Stoney Trail with no transit service what-so-ever. It's going to be built where it makes financial sense and it doesn't look like the city is inclined to buying themselves a seat at the table.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

A Flames arena would be just as well attended if it were built next to Stoney Trail with no transit service what-so-ever. It's going to be built where it makes financial sense and it doesn't look like the city is inclined to buying themselves a seat at the table.

The Senators are the least financially successful team in Canada right now in no small part because they built their arena in the middle of nowhere. Attendance will always be good during the good times but drops off faster when things aren't as good and the corporate support is just as fickle. The city doesn't need to buy a seat at the table to put the arena downtown, all that is really known about the project is that is where it's going, it is if the city wants to dictate which side of downtown it will go on.

[PlanZ]

With Edmonton's new arena going downtown, all the Canadian NHL arenas will be located in the inner city, with exception of Kanata, which has proven to be disastrous. The ACC, Bell Centre, and MTS Centre are all within the top 20 of busiest arenas in the world. Expect to see the new Edmonton arena and Calgary inner city arena in this range when they open as well.

Gone are the days when we'd consider building an arena out by Stoney trail near Airdrie to save money.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

A Flames arena would be just as well attended if it were built next to Stoney Trail with no transit service what-so-ever. It's going to be built where it makes financial sense and it doesn't look like the city is inclined to buying themselves a seat at the table.

The land value would be a small $ amount relative to total construction costs; prob 5% and the variance between a peripheral downtown location, say Railtown vs. Firestone land value wouldn't be huge.

The flames may be a little more location inelastic, but how about the other events at the arena plus stadium and fieldhouse?

Lower commercial rents for office/retail out there too compared to inner city.

You don't sink billions of dollars into a huge multipurpose sporting and entertainment district and chose a crappy location.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

The land value would be a small $ amount relative to total construction costs; prob 5% and the variance between a peripheral downtown location, say Railtown vs. Firestone land value wouldn't be huge.

The flames may be a little more location inelastic, but how about the other events at the arena plus stadium and fieldhouse?

Lower commercial rents for office/retail out there too compared to inner city.

You don't sink billions of dollars into a huge multipurpose sporting and entertainment district and chose a crappy location.

The Flames organization is likely looking well beyond just sports revenue here, there is likely much more money to be made from concerts and other entertainment items (clubs, casinos, etc.). You don't put an entertainment venue anywhere but the most central location possible, this is particularly true in Calgary with the very centralized nature of the office space.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

The Flames organization is likely looking well beyond just sports revenue here, there is likely much more money to be made from concerts and other entertainment items (clubs, casinos, etc.). You don't put an entertainment venue anywhere but the most central location possible, this is particularly true in Calgary with the very centralized nature of the office space.

I'd like if the new arena incorporated residential and office uses right at the site. Also, it would make sense to put the stadium right next to transit instead of making everyone wander through a labyrinth like now.

If we build it at Rail Town, it should be oriented around the SELRT from the start, and should probably even be built concurrently.

If we build it at the West Village, it should be built concurrently with road network redesign.

Surface parking should not be included.

[Policy Wonk]

I'm not actually suggesting the new Flames arena would be built in a suburban location. Only that in the absence of subsidies (which I don't really favour) the decision making process might not be stacked the way you might prefer.

Although I just role my eyes at people speaking as though the West Village and Firestone are Venus and Mars respectively. Seeing as when the plant was closing and the LRT was being built it was presented as a natural extension of downtown.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I'm not actually suggesting the new Flames arena would be built in a suburban location. Only that in the absence of subsidies (which I don't really favour) the decision making process might not be stacked the way you might prefer.

Although I just role my eyes at people speaking as though the West Village and Firestone are Venus and Mars respectively. Seeing as when the plant was closing and the LRT was being built it was presented as a natural extension of downtown.

I see what you mean, but much like the Stampede grounds, West Village can and will be integrated into Downtown and the surrounding area. Firestone's isolation is at a whole other level. If you are seriously considering Firestone, you might also consider Lion's Park, 39th Ave South, Banff Trail, the Zoo Parking lot, or Brentwood. The advantage of being stumbling distance from downtown is vital.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I'm not actually suggesting the new Flames arena would be built in a suburban location. Only that in the absence of subsidies (which I don't really favour) the decision making process might not be stacked the way you might prefer.

Although I just role my eyes at people speaking as though the West Village and Firestone are Venus and Mars respectively. Seeing as when the plant was closing and the LRT was being built it was presented as a natural extension of downtown.

I know this is off topic (apologies to everyone) but you've mentioned this several times in this thread. I've never heard of a plan to make Firestone a "second downtown" and why it failed to actually see the light of day and would genuinely be interested in learning more. If you have any access to plans or renders, perhaps you could either start a new thread, post them here, or pm them to me? I've always found it interesting looking at the "what could have been" type plans for Calgary and trying to learn why they failed. Especially when looking at some of the large scale current day civic improvement plans (ie: Eau Claire 7 tower project or even as a more contextually appropriate example the Stampede Trail proposal that is still in limbo). I know you have this approach towards the NCLRT portion of the Green Line (plans are just plans... they can be continually changed until construction is under way) and would love to learn more about how/why you've come to develop this perspective over the years.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I see what you mean, but much like the Stampede grounds, West Village can and will be integrated into Downtown and the surrounding area. Firestone's isolation is at a whole other level. If you are seriously considering Firestone, you might also consider Lion's Park, 39th Ave South, Banff Trail, the Zoo Parking lot, or Brentwood. The advantage of being stumbling distance from downtown is vital.

I don't understand by what standard a location that is situated around Deerfoot, Memorial and Barlow and is ten minutes from downtown by LRT is "isolation at a whole other level".

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

I know this is off topic (apologies to everyone) but you've mentioned this several times in this thread. I've never heard of a plan to make Firestone a "second downtown" and why it failed to actually see the light of day and would genuinely be interested in learning more. If you have any access to plans or renders, perhaps you could either start a new thread, post them here, or pm them to me? I've always found it interesting looking at the "what could have been" type plans for Calgary and trying to learn why they failed. Especially when looking at some of the large scale current day civic improvement plans (ie: Eau Claire 7 tower project or even as a more contextually appropriate example the Stampede Trail proposal that is still in limbo). I know you have this approach towards the NCLRT portion of the Green Line (plans are just plans... they can be continually changed until construction is under way) and would love to learn more about how/why you've come to develop this perspective over the years.

When the Firestone plant closed the site was purchased by a German investor named Werner Ehret who proposed redeveloping the site with the LRT in mind. The project got bogged down in the recession of the early 80's and then the investors walked after a protracted pissing contest with City Hall and after a few failed attempts at restarting the project Ehret sold the site to Yale Properties.

I just don't take radical proposals set out by people who have absolutely zero ability to execute on them very seriously because they have no responsibility or accountability. That isn't planning, it's political theatre. But the problem with political theatre is it can breathe life to controversies that have no reason to exist. Public discussions such as whether the SELRT or NCLRT should come first or just how dysfunctional a Centre Street LRT should be designed to be are completely unproductive, largely because there are no decisions of those types to be made today, tomorrow or even a decade from now. But also because I guarantee there is going to be a bunch of simpletons running for office with vague promises of subways, they too comfortably under the umbrella of zero-responsibility.

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't understand by what standard a location that is situated around Deerfoot, Memorial and Barlow and is ten minutes from downtown by LRT is "isolation at a whole other level".

I think Firestone could be pretty cool if built out in complete LA Live style and I would almost prefer a stadium and field house up there to one downtown, but there is virtually no comparison of the community integration and pedestrian access of that site to either of the downtown sites. An arena slotted in somewhere within easy walking range of all that downtown and beltline offer and already house is a completely different beast than something up there, no matter how well-accessed the site is by LRT and high volume roads.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't understand by what standard a location that is situated around Deerfoot, Memorial and Barlow and is ten minutes from downtown by LRT is "isolation at a whole other level".

Because it's not Downtown.