New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

Which is handy when you have it next to downtown L.A. If you want corporate events, why would you move it farther from your corporate base?

I have to go to events hosted at the Chinook Cineplex and the Glenmore Inn far more often than I would like.

These wouldn't survive at Firepark either, this wouldn't be a tourist driven area as we aren't a tourist driven city like LA or New York when it comes to these attractions.

Have you been to the Phoenix Coyotes arena? Which is quite literally the middle of the Arizona desert. It has an entertainment and retail district too. It's the type of place boring middle class white people drive their Chevy Cruze to splurge for their anniversary with a $24.99 steak dinner and then take in whatever romantic comedy the Mrs. wants to see.

If Flames Central can survive on Stephen Ave, an equally cheesy Flames bar would be better served being a stone's throw from their clientele with more 'neighborhood appropriate' amenities to support it and whatever other 'star attractions' would be a part of it.

Never the two shall meet. The East Village is going to be drowning in retail and restaurant opportunities. Probably so much so that it will be detrimental to quality. (To say there will probably be plenty of space for Subway franchises and stores that sell rhinestone encrusted iPhone cases) I don't see how "neighborhood appropriate amenities" even figure into an arena district. Why pay a premium on rent to just be a little further away from the residential population?

While it may be fine for the site, it would be terrible for an arena district given the other options available. Building the Canadian Tire Centre where they did was the best outcome for that site too, doesn't make it a good choice.

The Canadian Tire Centre represents the archaic stadium surrounded by a parking lot form, there is nothing within a mile of the place except car dealerships. Assuming Ramsay is joking about Crossiron, I don't think anyone is suggesting that in any location. The arena can be a catalyst for redevelopment of a long distressed area. It isn't just a place to rebuild the Silverdome.

[McMurph]

Maybe if someone makes Ken King read the never-ending debate in this forum he'll save us all from our suffering and just tell us where it's going to be.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

People in the south take the northbound train, people from the NW and West take the southbound train, this reverses when the game ends. They're on the same line but split up.

At the Stampede Grounds now, people from the West and NE cannot take their trains, rather, take the same single line that services Stampede Park, and then transfer to other trains. Currently all from the NW, W and NE take the same direction at Stampede. It is dealt with simply by having a few extra train cars ready to go for when the games end, and will be mitigated more so once four car trains are in play. Would be no different at Firepark/Maxbell.

The bus and car access at Stampede is modest at best and probably is better described as sucking, with no direct access to any high bandwidth high speed roads. On this front, it would be much improved at Firepark/Maxbell. North on Barlow to McKnight. East and West on Memorial. North and South on Deerfoot. Remember that this is better for buses as well as cars.

Being between Deerfoot and Barlow at Memorial is not deep NE or SE. It is actually quite well located in context of the entire city. Someone on this thread mentioned Ottawa, and I think that comparison is ridiculous and particularly uneducated.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Have you been to the Phoenix Coyotes arena? Which is quite literally the middle of the Arizona desert. It has an entertainment and retail district too. It's the type of place boring middle class white people drive their Chevy Cruze to splurge for their anniversary with a $24.99 steak dinner and then take in whatever romantic comedy the Mrs. wants to see.

Not nearly enough did which is why it went into foreclosure in 2011 and remains unsold at auction. Everything about that arena and district has been a complete disaster for everybody involved in it's development.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

Not nearly enough did which is why it went into foreclosure in 2011 and remains unsold at auction. Everything about that arena and district has been a complete disaster for everybody involved in it's development.

The issue was the reliability of the Coyotes as an anchor of the Gila River development. It wasn't till last year that the Coyotes future in Glendale post-bankruptcy was actually secured.

[Innersoul1]

There aren't many thinks about Edmonton that I am jealous of. I was just perusing their new arena construction page and I am totally jealous. It's certainly amazing to watch that kind of project progress. It's an amazing scale and certainly something exciting for the city! I really hope we have something to get excited about in the near future.

[hulkrogan]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The issue was the reliability of the Coyotes as an anchor of the Gila River development. It wasn't till last year that the Coyotes future in Glendale post-bankruptcy was actually secured.

It's just the lipstick on a pig version of Ottawa's arena. The location is horrible, and there is a reason the NHL will no longer allow out of town arenas, they've been a disaster everywhere they've been tried.

[Policy Wonk]

Who is arguing for that?

I'm discussing the peripheral development that accompanies most modern facilities. The issue for the area around the Coyotes, the Westgate Entertainment District, was that it was pretty much a foregone conclusion until last summer that the Coyotes were leaving town.

[suburbia]

I hear downtown is a complete mess once again because of a "police matter". Complete grid-lock. Buses and cars can't. There will be no hockey game tonight.

[WaitWhat?]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The issue was the reliability of the Coyotes as an anchor of the Gila River development. It wasn't till last year that the Coyotes future in Glendale post-bankruptcy was actually secured.

One theory is that the Coyote's low turnout to games, along with the Diamondbacks and Suns, is due in part on the city of Phoenix' low density. When only 41% of metro Phoenix lives within 10 miles of downtown, it can be a tall order for season ticketholders to commute into downtown everyday for a Diamondback game or a Suns game every 2 to 3 days. Especially when so few people actually work in downtown Phoenix. This would not be an issue in Calgary.

Or maybe the teams in Phoenix just suck.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/03/how-build-successful-downtown-stadium/1593/

[WaitWhat?]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I hear downtown is a complete mess once again because of a "police matter". Complete grid-lock. Buses and cars can't. There will be no hockey game tonight.

No hockey game might have more to do with the schedule.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The issue was the reliability of the Coyotes as an anchor of the Gila River development. It wasn't till last year that the Coyotes future in Glendale post-bankruptcy was actually secured.

An entertainment district being dependent on an arena is one thing. Being dependent on just one anchor tenant is a recipe for failure, which is what happened. The only time Westgate was even remotely busy was when the Coyotes played, and the only time it was kind of busy is when they played on a weekend (so people could actually get there in time to have something to eat/go to the bar).

The Coyotes future being in question isn't why people didn't go to Westgate on non-game days and nights or why it's vacancy rate is high. It was a bad project in a worse location.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I hear downtown is a complete mess once again because of a "police matter". Complete grid-lock. Buses and cars can't. There will be no hockey game tonight.

Arrgghhhhh .............troll smash.......grrrrrrhhhhhh

[Policy Wonk]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore or what it has to do with any of the locations for a Flames arena being discussed here. The circumstances of the Gila River development are very specific, but it is no less representative of a development format found around many stadiums and other attractions. It's a symbiotic relationship where a secondary attraction, usually a theatre or theatres supplies an acceptable level of traffic to the restaurants and other amenities when the stadium or attraction is idle.

The threat of the primary attraction disappearing and therefore tenants refusing to sign or renew leases is quite another situation. And that seems fairly unlikely in this one. Since I don't think the Flames at tremendous expensive are going to develop a new arena and the surrounding area and then threaten to move to a fifty year-old arena in Seattle that smells like mold. But I also don't think in a city where people will stand for an hour or more waiting for a table at the Olive Garden has exhausted the potential for casual dining "date night" destinations.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore or what it has to do with any of the locations for a Flames arena being discussed here.

You're the one who brought up Margaritaville and the burning money pit in Glendale, I figure you'd know.

The circumstances of the Gila River development are very specific, but it is no less representative of a development format found around many stadiums and other attractions. It's a symbiotic relationship where a secondary attraction, usually a theatre or theatres supplies an acceptable level of traffic to the restaurants and other amenities when the stadium or attraction is idle.

I'd say it's the perfect example of an arena district not being an attraction in and of itself. Glendale would be a more extreme example because of just how far it is away from their main market, but it is still the greatest mess of any planned arena development around (it was extremely close to bankrupting ALL parties involved, the only holdout being the city of Glendale who is merely losing more and more money after draining various city funds and cutting services as a result).

While Westgate was crippled by even the threat of the arena's anchor tenant leaving, the Spring Center in Kansas City remains without one but still has a thriving entertainment district that was built along with it (next to downtown Kansas City), as do arenas with anchor tenants like Columbus (also next to downtown Columbus), the SHED in Winnipeg (downtown Winnipeg) and L.A. Live (the trend continues).

Firepark's biggest advantage is that it is on a transit stop, even if that transit stop isn't as good as some of the other locations. It needlessly separates the corporate base, it is the wrong direction from downtown, is kind of a tease with it's road access (a lot of people can get to the Memorial/Barlow intersection really fast at least) and is isolated from all pedestrian traffic.

Firepark is the best bad location, but it is still a bad location.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by suburbia

At the Stampede Grounds now, people from the West and NE cannot take their trains, rather, take the same single line that services Stampede Park, and then transfer to other trains. Currently all from the NW, W and NE take the same direction at Stampede. It is dealt with simply by having a few extra train cars ready to go for when the games end, and will be mitigated more so once four car trains are in play. Would be no different at Firepark/Maxbell.

The bus and car access at Stampede is modest at best and probably is better described as sucking, with no direct access to any high bandwidth high speed roads. On this front, it would be much improved at Firepark/Maxbell. North on Barlow to McKnight. East and West on Memorial. North and South on Deerfoot. Remember that this is better for buses as well as cars.

Being between Deerfoot and Barlow at Memorial is not deep NE or SE. It is actually quite well located in context of the entire city. Someone on this thread mentioned Ottawa, and I think that comparison is ridiculous and particularly uneducated.

The Saddledome is also a ten minute walk from City Hall Station where W-NE trains stop. The SE LRT will have a station closer than that when its built. Furthermore, a new arena on the Stampede grounds would likely be north of the Saddledome, putting it even closer to the other train lines. Firepark is in no way comparable to that.

[speedog]

How about the whole McMahon/Father David Bauer complex/baseball stadium/sports fields being redeveloped as part of a endowment for the U of C with Flames retaining all parking revenues on Flames Org. event days and all concessions going to Flames as they currently are at McMahon?

This land area would easily accommodate a new arena/stadium/fieldhouse.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

You're the one who brought up Margaritaville and the burning money pit in Glendale, I figure you'd know.

I bought up an example of an amenity that is pretty ubiquitous in areas such as these and yet unlikely to be patronized by people living in the immediate area. I question the degree to which a stadium that will be closed a great many nights of an earth year is really a net addition to a largely residential area.

The issue I raise is that to attract even crappy chain restaurants to an area such as this you need amenities that will draw at least tepid patronage the rest of the nights of an earth year. These are often theatres. You need both sides of the equation or everything breaks down. The Gila River development suffered from more than five years of crippling ambiguity and was resolved only recently. But what one finds there is roughly what would be built anywhere, an outdoor pedestrian lifestyle centre, heavy on slightly upmarket casual dining resturants with a large movie theatre where there would otherwise be parking spots.

While Westgate was crippled by even the threat of the arena's anchor tenant leaving, the Spring Center in Kansas City remains without one but still has a thriving entertainment district that was built along with it (next to downtown Kansas City), as do arenas with anchor tenants like Columbus (also next to downtown Columbus), the SHED in Winnipeg (downtown Winnipeg) and L.A. Live (the trend continues).

And the probability of the Flames leaving a newly built arena at Firestone or in the West Village is what exactly? And just to nitpick, isn't the Spring Center, it's the Sprint Center.

Firepark is the best bad location, but it is still a bad location.

I look at this very simply. What area would be the most elevated by this type of development combined with the probability of it developing satisfactorily on it's own. The West Village would benefit enormously from something with a really, really big parkade. But it will get their on it's own. The location is just too good. Firestone looks today roughly what it looked like thirty years ago. It's a microcosm of the wasteland east of the South LRT. It's just too big and too bleak to be developed piecemeal but opportunities to blanket it over are few. This though being one of them.

[McMurph]

It's the whole idea of a multi-use, multi-sport, massive facility that has opened up this conversation. If it were only an arena then there would be no debate -- it would be somewhere (anywhere, really) in the centre of the city for all the reasons everyone has already articulated. You could stick it on the IOL site and sell air rights to Tall Bob. But adding the footprint of a stadium and fieldhouse gives the thing a much larger perimeter with significantly less use. That kind of place can't be shoehorned into an existing neighbourhood. That's what makes Firestone more appealing.

The timeline is key. It would take decades for a entertainment / sports destination at Firestone to become a real happening hub. At the same time (in decades) West Village and Railtown would both be built out in a way that would be a far better use of the land than what the Flames could currently offer. In 30 years I would resent a stadium downtown. Calgary isn't St Louis (or any other hollowed out hopeless american city) -- we don't need a stadium downtown to revitalize anything. I think we would very soon find that it gets in the way of the city we've been trying to build.

I hope the Flames separate the arena from the stadium. Give us a great downtown arena and a decent, slightly more peripheral, stadium (as with a McMahon reno). Or be bold and try to quickly build out an LA Live type centre at Firestone, with the risk that the facilities would be archaic by the time the area plan finally starts to work.

For what it's worth, the football stadium itself at LA Live (Farmer's Field) has been held up for over a decade and may never be built.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by McMurph

For what it's worth, the football stadium itself at LA Live (Farmer's Field) has been held up for over a decade and may never be built.

Well there is the slight issue of Los Angeles not having had a football team for the last twenty years. In any event even NFL owners who have flirted with a move to L.A. didn't seem too interested in doing business with Anschutz.