New Downtown Calgary Arena

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by McMurph

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.

You're correct in saying that the sites are not the same. Firepark is over 200% of railtown. Clearly the opportunity for a large scale project in Firepark goes way beyond anything that could be built at railtown. I think people who don't understand the clear advantages and possibilities of Firepark, not only with better road access, existing better LRT access, more than double the land, and re-development opportunities at a very large max bell site across the way (including that land you're well over 300% railtown), have their heads stuck up backside of a Beltline drunk. Including the Max Bell site in the larger development project, you reach all the way to the mouth of International avenue.

[PlanZ]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Because it's not Downtown.

It's also on the wrong side of Deerfoot. Huge physical and mental barrier.

[Deepstar]

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".

It may be near the Deerfoot and the LRT, but from a pedestrian standpoint, it is completely isolated. There is zero opportunity to have a vibrant arena district unless it is near downtown.

[The Fisher Account]

Yeah, I mean seriously guys.. give up the FirePark dream already. It's not going to happen.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by PlanZ

It's also on the wrong side of Deerfoot. Huge physical and mental barrier.

So is the airport, so unless you're going to limit yourself to planes departing from and arriving at Springbank, get over it.

I'm blown away that people who appreciate the nuances of the Beltline have a fear of Firepark.

[PlanZ]

Originally Posted by suburbia

So is the airport, so unless you're going to limit yourself to planes departing from and arriving at Springbank, get over it.

I'm blown away that people who appreciate the nuances of the Beltline have a fear of Firepark.

Did you just compare the airport to a sports and entertainment venue?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

It may be near the Deerfoot and the LRT, but from a pedestrian standpoint, it is completely isolated. There is zero opportunity to have a vibrant arena district unless it is near downtown.

And those pedestrians can't ambulate themselves to an LRT station?

How exactly does a giant concrete bunker that will be locked shut 200+ nights a year contribute to vibrancy above and beyond an ordinary pedestrian retail and dining strip?

The anchor of L.A. Live as a year-round business is it's 12,000 theatre seats.

[Joborule]

I've always considered that hockey arenas are better based in regions that have heavy foot traffic everyday since the venue would get a lot of nightly uses. Such, as close to downtown as possible makes complete sense for them. Building where the action already is, or is walking distance from it should benefit the arena district right off the bat. West Village/Railtown is going to get development that brings more people to it at some point in the future. (Residence, retail, office) Building an arena district would kickstart it.

Firestone make more sense for a large stadium (NFL) if any venue was to be built there since it's a lot of land with not much there at the moment, and the venue would only gets used sparsely. In the long term, it could evolve into a district with lots of the bare land used up, but since residential buildings probably wouldn't be a focus, you wouldn't get as much evening foot traffic, that feeds money into surrounding amenities, as you would in the city centre vicinity.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

How exactly does a giant concrete bunker that will be locked shut 200+ nights a year contribute to vibrancy above and beyond an ordinary pedestrian retail and dining strip?

The anchor of L.A. Live as a year-round business is it's 12,000 theatre seats.

No, the anchor is the Staples Center which has "over 250 events a year." Kings, Lakers, Clippers (well over 2,000,000 people) and concerts (500,000+ every year) are what drives L.A. Live.

Like not building out in the boonies and having multiple concourses to efficiently move people, companies who run these arenas know the way to make them profitable is to stuff as many events into them as you possibly can. You're going to have trouble making money on a $300M+ arena if you're "locked shut 200+ nights a year."

[rotten42]

I can remember back when SMED took a hard look at putting their office/factory at Firepark. They bailed but I can't remember exactly why. Wasn't there an issue with soil contamination there previously?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

No, the anchor is the Staples Center which has "over 250 events a year." Kings, Lakers, Clippers (well over 2,000,000 people) and concerts (500,000+ every year) are what drives L.A. Live.

Like not building out in the boonies and having multiple concourses to efficiently move people, companies who run these arenas know the way to make them profitable is to stuff as many events into them as you possibly can. You're going to have trouble making money on a $300M+ arena if you're "locked shut 200+ nights a year."

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were on Venus, how's the weather? On Earth our years are typically 365 days. The guaranteed day-to-day traffic at L.A. Live is the movie theatres (and Nokia theatres) and they are needed to support the restaurants. During the slow times there are all sorts of promotions to that effect. That is a feature found in a lot of similar developments. Theatres bring in a lot of foot traffic when the primary attraction isn't operating. Citywalk at Universal Studios is similar. The restaurants and retailers aren't going to stick around paying rent when the theme park closes at 6:00.

The challenge for amenities in a location like Railtown or the West Village is whether or not they will have a sufficient draw to bring people from outside the area when there is no game or event taking place. That will be defined to a tremendous degree not just by the amenities themselves but also by traffic and parking hassles and just how comfortable people feel in that area at the end of the night.

[flipstah]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

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

Stampede has an entertainment district?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by rotten42

I can remember back when SMED took a hard look at putting their office/factory at Firepark. They bailed but I can't remember exactly why. Wasn't there an issue with soil contamination there previously?

Parts of the site were contaminated with PCB's. But I have been under the impression that was cleaned up years ago.

The biggest problem with the site is probably Yale themselves.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by flipstah

Stampede has an entertainment district?

+1. Stampede's Entertainment District is nothing but smoke and mirrors. If the rumours are true, good on the Flames from pulling away from such an unambitious organization like the Stampede to have a go at creating a district themselves. They may be ambitious about agriculture and rodeos, but creating entertainment districts are clearly outside of the realm of things they are actively interested in doing, other than paying lip service to.

The Stampede has shown nothing in years other than a desire to let a hundred acres of prime real estate sit fallow 355 days a year - for 25+ years and counting - in the fastest growing city in Canada.

They make Brad Lamb look reliable on project timelines in comparison.

For the new arena, one of the biggest pushes being felt by the Flames - and a big reason why they want to keep in in the immediate city centre - is the corporate boxes and sponsorships. The pressure from the big companies to have it accessible to downtown for all events is an enormous influence, I would guess probably more than the influence the city wields at this point. The arena might work out quite well as it seems that all stakeholders are largely in alignment at one of two inner city locations - Flames, sponsors, majority of fans, city officials.

[flipstah]

Originally Posted by MasterG

+1. Stampede's Entertainment District is nothing but smoke and mirrors. If the rumours are true, good on the Flames from pulling away from such an unambitious organization like the Stampede to have a go at creating a district themselves. They may be ambitious about agriculture and rodeos, but creating entertainment districts are clearly outside of the realm of things they are actively interested in doing, other than paying lip service to.

The Stampede has shown nothing in years other than a desire to let a hundred acres of prime real estate sit fallow 355 days a year - for 25+ years and counting - in the fastest growing city in Canada.

They make Brad Lamb look reliable on project timelines in comparison.

For the new arena, one of the biggest pushes being felt by the Flames - and a big reason why they want to keep in in the immediate city centre - is the corporate boxes and sponsorships. The pressure from the big companies to have it accessible to downtown for all events is an enormous influence, I would guess probably more than the influence the city wields at this point. The arena might work out quite well as it seems that all stakeholders are largely in alignment at one of two inner city locations - Flames, sponsors, majority of fans, city officials.

The only time I'd ever go to that area are:

- Concerts I bought tickets for
- Stampede 1/10 days because as a Calgarian, it's all the same every year so once is sufficient
- If the Flyers are in town

Other than that, there's no BIG incentive for me to go past 7th Ave. Cowboys suck and I'd rather drive to Grey Eagle for an awesome meal and gamble the night away.

[Policy Wonk]

No matter how serious they are or aren't. It would be difficult to impossible to get commitments for a project like that when the location of the new area is unsettled.


The Simpsons

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by flipstah

The only time I'd ever go to that area are:

- Concerts I bought tickets for
- Stampede 1/10 days because as a Calgarian, it's all the same every year so once is sufficient
- If the Flyers are in town

Other than that, there's no BIG incentive for me to go past 7th Ave. Cowboys suck and I'd rather drive to Grey Eagle for an awesome meal and gamble the night away.

Same. I usually won't venture past 1st SW or South of Stephen Ave except for the reasons you list, also the occasional event at BMO centre. (no Flyers for me though )

Total ghost town and one of the least pleasant areas of the inner city. It seems like everyone but the Stampede is getting in on the action - all of the Macleod Trail condos, Arriva + Guardians, new Beltline Park, East Village, hotel proposals etc. The Stampede had the jump on all of these and had plans for ages but they failed to join the party. I can hardly blame them - they are a celebration of rural and cowboy culture after all, not a development firm - but they really are missing out on the resurgence of the inner city that everyone else is on-board with. This will be increasingly obvious as the other districts nearby get better and better.

My bet is it will be another decade or so before they come to their senses - probably after a few of the more conservative members of their board retire/pass-away - and realize they ironically are the largest blight in inner Calgary - while still trying to be the preeminent destination district. Those two things rarely coincide peacefully. Except maybe Las Vegas

[Policy Wonk]

I'm no fan on the Stampede, but there is only so much you can do with fairgrounds and still be fairgrounds.

If history played out differently the Stampede might have moved to the old air base where Mount Royal College is now.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I'm no fan on the Stampede, but there is only so much you can do with fairgrounds and still be fairgrounds.

If history played out differently the Stampede might have moved to the old air base where Mount Royal College is now.

They could at least give it a try on the extremely underused part that they annexed from Victoria Park over the years (no fair ground activities have ever occurred here if I recall). All those parking lots along Olympic Way, before you enter the grounds proper from the North (12th Ave south to the Saddledome) are exactly the type of place for development that they say they want but do nothing to actually pursue - a retail/entertainment district. Throw in a few more condos to keep things moving all year round and you can keep the southern wasteland portion for decades more.

[hulkrogan]

I can speak for myself and my 3 friends that all have season tickets together, and I would 100% attend less games if the arena was at Firepark, for many reasons, including logistics.

I think the Flame's have heard the same thing from many people regarding an arena outside of downtown, and (luckily) want nothing to do with it.