New Downtown Calgary Arena

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by 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.

I would agree that a inner city football stadium in conjunction with the arena is too much for one neighbourhood (unless a stadium is built over the existing wasteland of the Stampede Park in conjunction with a new arena but that option isn't on the table).

Doing both stadiums in one area would not be appealing wherever it is you are right - it is simply too large of a site devoted to one use. They should split them up.

The hockey arena is vastly better utilized, smaller and better to integrate into the urban form and really offers a huge benefit to being next to the hub of office/residential downtown. Sponsorships, concerts, corporate partners - there is no other place it should be to maximize the attractiveness to these stakeholders. The transportation connections are there already and the pre/post game economy of bars and restaurants are already developed.

A football stadium at Firestone might not be terrible - but that is largely due to the fact that Banff Trail is prime for redevelopment and a stadium is a terrible use of space in the NW Hub. Due to the proximity to Deerfoot and Memorial, Firestone will never redevelop to anything urban or attractive. It has terrible urban form and will always remain disconnected from the city centre, even if it appears close on the map.

We are not talking about the mental block of the vacant (soon to be filled in) East Village gap that makes Inglewood and the east of Calgary seem much farther away. The Deerfoot valley is many times wider and much less attractive. It will never be anything more than a dirty transportation corridor and associated connections like Memorial Drive will suffer because of this. No proposal for Firestone will be able to ameliorate the hugely unattractive negatives of being next to these two corridors.

With that said, if we want to make a football stadium as a proposal to reuse and clean up Firestone, let's do it. But let's not kid ourselves, entertainment district/urban place-making this is not. Nothing realistic you could build at Firestone would make that area attractive. It is simply a transfer of a sea of parking lots to a new area and a newer-looking stadium to a empty area that is impossible to be much else beyond that.

So I would prefer Railtown for the arena (although I can live with West Village) and Firestone for the Football Stadium. Firestone will just become another McMahon area, but frees up the vastly greater potential of redeveloping the existing McMahon site.

[Innersoul1]

Let's think outside of the box for a moment with regard to the stadium/arena/fieldhouse combo. If executed properly we could actually see much more action on this site then we are thinking, potentially taking it out from being a total deadzone. IF the stadium could somehow incorporate a retractable roof it would open up a lot of potential for tradeshows and concerts, as is the case with BC place. Let'e assume that the arena would also bring in a lot more concert traffic as well. The fieldhouse could also have a lot of potential use with minor sports and recreation especially considering how places like the Talisman Centre are bursting at the seams.

To me what this comes down to is execution. If the Flames want to go in at such a large scale there needs to be significant planning and attention to detail. It needs to be done properly and elegantly as a showpiece for the city not just something thrown together.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

Let's think outside of the box for a moment with regard to the stadium/arena/fieldhouse combo. If executed properly we could actually see much more action on this site then we are thinking, potentially taking it out from being a total deadzone. IF the stadium could somehow incorporate a retractable roof it would open up a lot of potential for tradeshows and concerts, as is the case with BC place. Let'e assume that the arena would also bring in a lot more concert traffic as well. The fieldhouse could also have a lot of potential use with minor sports and recreation especially considering how places like the Talisman Centre are bursting at the seams.

To me what this comes down to is execution. If the Flames want to go in at such a large scale there needs to be significant planning and attention to detail. It needs to be done properly and elegantly as a showpiece for the city not just something thrown together.

True. Part of my hesitation to put all the facilities together is that I have little confidence it will be done right.

It could be a real gem if they pull it off, it just seems to be difficult enough that there aren't many examples of a project as significant as a multi-stadium complex succeeding in all the ways it has to - vitality to the community, avoidance of a dead-zone, pedestrian-friendly, multi-use, accessible by transit.

Edmonton seems to have really done something right with their approach to lump it in with a major revitalization and downtown office/hotel/condo development in a land-efficient package well served by transit. Hopefully it works out for them and sets the bar high-enough we don't get a more typical outcome when sports companies try to be developers.

[Spring2008]

Great ideas!

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

Let's think outside of the box for a moment with regard to the stadium/arena/fieldhouse combo. If executed properly we could actually see much more action on this site then we are thinking, potentially taking it out from being a total deadzone. IF the stadium could somehow incorporate a retractable roof it would open up a lot of potential for tradeshows and concerts, as is the case with BC place. Let'e assume that the arena would also bring in a lot more concert traffic as well. The fieldhouse could also have a lot of potential use with minor sports and recreation especially considering how places like the Talisman Centre are bursting at the seams.

To me what this comes down to is execution. If the Flames want to go in at such a large scale there needs to be significant planning and attention to detail. It needs to be done properly and elegantly as a showpiece for the city not just something thrown together.

[bt04ku]

While Firestone is a hill I am willing to die on I. Regards to keeping an arena away from it, I don't really care if a stadium goes there. However a stadium wouldn't really be a great driver for any sort of TOD due to the lack of events it can hold, even with a retractable roof (which would greatly add to the cost). It would just be a big footprint to take up.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

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.

You're forgetting that between firepark & maxbell, it is also three times as large as railtown. One could do a heck of a lot with that much potential.

Regarding quality of the train station, that can be improved as required.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MasterG

So I would prefer Railtown for the arena (although I can live with West Village) and Firestone for the Football Stadium. Firestone will just become another McMahon area, but frees up the vastly greater potential of redeveloping the existing McMahon site.

I could live with that split, though I think firestone + max bell could do a lot of development in addition to having both. You'd probably put the stadium on top with commercial developments around. You'd put the arena below in the max bell area, with a mezzanine level entry from the train station that would be lined with restaurants and services. Could actually to a heck of a lot more than that, but just a start. Integrating the train station better would be important, and I think that would be an easy no brainer for this site.

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

Let's think outside of the box for a moment with regard to the stadium/arena/fieldhouse combo. If executed properly we could actually see much more action on this site then we are thinking, potentially taking it out from being a total deadzone. IF the stadium could somehow incorporate a retractable roof it would open up a lot of potential for tradeshows and concerts, as is the case with BC place.

Agree with this, and I think Firepark is the only site that could allow for a stadium / field house combo that together would be an exceptional trade show / convention facility, with the arena and services all on the same massive complex.

My feeling from the last time I chatted with Ken was that they indeed are thinking way more multi-purpose than the current two individual buildings. It would take a bigger bite out of the Stampede than just parking.

Originally Posted by bt04ku

While Firestone is a hill I am willing to die on I. Regards to keeping an arena away from it, I don't really care if a stadium goes there. However a stadium wouldn't really be a great driver for any sort of TOD due to the lack of events it can hold, even with a retractable roof (which would greatly add to the cost). It would just be a big footprint to take up.

Which part of "three times larger than railtown" don't you get?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I could live with that split, though I think firestone + max bell could do a lot of development in addition to having both. You'd probably put the stadium on top with commercial developments around. You'd put the arena below in the max bell area, with a mezzanine level entry from the train station that would be lined with restaurants and services. Could actually to a heck of a lot more than that, but just a start. Integrating the train station better would be important, and I think that would be an easy no brainer for this site.

That may work for a stadium. The area just really isn't that attractive so the proposal would have to be enormous to make a dent on sheer size of the blight. The population density is too low in every direction for kilometres to have any sort of vitality beyond another big-box store development. It is true you have an enormous amount of space, but it would have to be thousands of residential units, an entirely rethought (more likely thought for the first time) pedestrian network, the likes of which an area east of Deerfoot has never seen. Commercial, retail and office would likely all be required to add enough activity to the site to make it something. And you have to do this with several immutable detractors to the site: Memorial Drive freeway dividing it North and South, low-density industrial stretching far to the north, and the ever increasing in enormity and barrier of Deerfoot Trail. All this means that the area would have to support itself, it can't bank on being near other active and vibrant areas like Railtown or West Village.

It could absolutely work, but I doubt a football team would stomach the burden of such a project.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MasterG

That may work for a stadium. The area just really isn't that attractive so the proposal would have to be enormous to make a dent on sheer size of the blight. The population density is too low in every direction for kilometres to have any sort of vitality beyond another big-box store development. It is true you have an enormous amount of space, but it would have to be thousands of residential units, an entirely rethought (more likely thought for the first time) pedestrian network, the likes of which an area east of Deerfoot has never seen. Commercial, retail and office would likely all be required to add enough activity to the site to make it something. And you have to do this with several immutable detractors to the site: Memorial Drive freeway dividing it North and South, low-density industrial stretching far to the north, and the ever increasing in enormity and barrier of Deerfoot Trail. All this means that the area would have to support itself, it can't bank on being near other active and vibrant areas like Railtown or West Village.

It could absolutely work, but I doubt a football team would stomach the burden of such a project.

Having been to the LA convention centre for events (it is connected to Staples Centre, the Nokia Theatre and the restaurants around that) I can tell you that there are not "thousands of residential units" around it. Same can be said more most stadia. Yes, you need development, but you don't need thousands of residential units within a few hundred feet to make it work. Professional teams require attendees from across the entire city.

The Firepark and MaxBell lands are prime, prime, prime, with a magnificent view of the valley, downtown, and the mountains beyond. It could be amazing, and just like any larger development area, it would require multiple groups coming in after a master site plan is laid out.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Which part of "three times larger than railtown" don't you get?

I guess the part where it matters. Between a good location and a bad location, I'd take a third of the land for the good one myself, but that's just me.

[googspecial]

What are the boundaries for Firepark? I have some extra time at work today and will attempt some mock up overlays of stadiums and arenas in the 3 areas.

Also, any suggestions for which buildings to use? Was thinking BC Place for stadium. Undecided on an arena.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Having been to the LA convention centre for events (it is connected to Staples Centre, the Nokia Theatre and the restaurants around that) I can tell you that there are not "thousands of residential units" around it. Same can be said more most stadia. Yes, you need development, but you don't need thousands of residential units within a few hundred feet to make it work. Professional teams require attendees from across the entire city.

The Firepark and MaxBell lands are prime, prime, prime, with a magnificent view of the valley, downtown, and the mountains beyond. It could be amazing, and just like any larger development area, it would require multiple groups coming in after a master site plan is laid out.

Residential should be included at any new development of this size. Perhaps not as the primary draw, but if you are going to redo a big area, residential is a gentler land-use change from the existing neighbourhood than multi-storey parking garages. It never hurts to add residential and businesses that may be a part of the retail mix will be thankful for it, especially when a football stadium only is used 15 times a year. To be anywhere close to successful, it requires football being one of several reasons to visit the area. Without residential units and a significant boost in density you are looking at one hell of a large parking lot and just another big-box store development full of traffic congestion and large trucks.

[McMurph]

For a stadium I'd go for Investor's Group in Winnipeg. It's new and probably much closer to the capacity of what the Stamps would be looking at. I think domes like BC Place are a thing of the past.

If you want to throw in an MLS field I think Houston's is the newest soccer-specific facility in North America.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

To me what this comes down to is execution. If the Flames want to go in at such a large scale there needs to be significant planning and attention to detail. It needs to be done properly and elegantly as a showpiece for the city not just something thrown together.

There are two areas of planning/design where this type of development would struggle: Mixed Use and Fine Grain Urbanism.

Jane Jacobs went to town describing the benefits of having a healthy mix of uses in an area. While an arena and a stadium could be trip generators, great neighbourhoods are made up of a variety of trip generators that spread the action throughout the day. Wouldn't an arena and a stadium be two massive examples of very similar uses? They would take up a large portion of their immediate neighbourhood and put a lot of pressure on the limited number of sites remaining to provide a great deal of the variety required for vibrancy.

Shorter blocks are arguably more conducive to urbanism and a healthy streetlife. Nevertheless, a city will require at least a few superblocks to accommodate special uses. If a fine grain is preferred, we'd be placing quite a burden on architects and urban designers to come up with a design for a development that would require two superblocks in a part of a city where urbanism is demanded.

The level of design in Calgary is rapidly improving but sometimes we still struggle with the basics. An arena and stadium combination would be a very complex design that I think would simply be asking too much, too soon.

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by McMurph

For a stadium I'd go for Investor's Group in Winnipeg. It's new and probably much closer to the capacity of what the Stamps would be looking at. I think domes like BC Place are a thing of the past.

If you want to throw in an MLS field I think Houston's is the newest soccer-specific facility in North America.

As much as a covered or retractable roof would open up a lot of options (concerts, conferences, tradeshows etc.) i don't thing the dollars and cents add up at this point. However, there are numerous models of covered (and retractable) or semi-covered stadia that fit that 20,000-35,000 seat range. If we want to be forward thinking we need to be mindful of a venue that can host soccer matches. MLS is a pipe dream at this point in the game, but even being able to host friendlies or international games should be taken into account. A venue that has great sight lines and protects the fans from the elements (somewhat) would be nice and certainly a boon for attendance.

Good points about Investors Group Stadium, certainly the best in the CFL. BBVA Compass Stadium in Houston is nice, great size. I would take that with the cantilevered roof all the way around. At 22,000 capacity it's a little bit small but it was built for $97 million which isn't to bad.

Riise has posted some great examples of European stadia that have design quality and meet the needs of an environment like Calgary. I believe if we go the pipe dream route check out this 30,000 seater from Stockholm for a paltry 400 million
http://vimeo.com/89387106

[googspecial]

Ok didn't end up having as much extra time as I thought I would. Quickly threw these together, using IG Field and Saddledome. Not the greatest quality, but whatever. I also showed the nearest LRT stations respective to each location.

To be honest, I was very pro-West Village... But after doing this I've realized Railtown really would be the best spot. With East Village and all those fancy new tall condo buildings in East Vic Park, this would fill the area in nice. I spaced them as such because I imagine a plaza between the buildings where the SE line would somehow interact with the district, whether under, at or below grade. With Orchard going up across the street, there isn't TONS of left over space for an LA Live sized entertainment district. But obviously it wouldn't need to be that large. And that is assuming Stampede does nothing for the area.





West Village would be great for that end of town, but I feel it would cost the most. With reconfiguration of the nearby road networks, upgrading an existing LRT station, adding underground parking etc.. It could certainly be the coolest location for all of this to go, and I would love to drive down the Bow Trail viaducts past these buildings, or into a tunnel underneath. But that's a dirty word in this city.




Firepark... Just no. I foresee swaths of surface lots if it goes here. There's just too much space, it would be difficult to entice 3rd parties to build there due to it's distance from the core, and being a dead zone on non-event days. (Yes I've read all the pro points for it, but just no)

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by googspecial

Ok didn't end up having as much extra time as I thought I would. Quickly threw these together, using IG Field and Saddledome. Not the greatest quality, but whatever. I also showed the nearest LRT stations respective to each location.

To be honest, I was very pro-West Village... But after doing this I've realized Railtown really would be the best spot. With East Village and all those fancy new tall condo buildings in East Vic Park, this would fill the area in nice. I spaced them as such because I imagine a plaza between the buildings where the SE line would somehow interact with the district, whether under, at or below grade. With Orchard going up across the street, there isn't TONS of left over space for an LA Live sized entertainment district. But obviously it wouldn't need to be that large. And that is assuming Stampede does nothing for the area.

To bad you're not likely to ever get the bus barns, pretty sure transit is going to hold on to that for a very long time.

[googspecial]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

To bad you're not likely to ever get the bus barns, pretty sure transit is going to hold on to that for a very long time.

Such with West Village and Greyhound, GSL & Mercedes...

Wouldn't it be easier for the city to expropriate from one of their own entities?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by googspecial

What are the boundaries for Firepark? I have some extra time at work today and will attempt some mock up overlays of stadiums and arenas in the 3 areas.

Also, any suggestions for which buildings to use? Was thinking BC Place for stadium. Undecided on an arena.

Make sure for firepark you also include the maxbell lands on the other side of the train station. Between these two tiered sites, it is massive, and also a bridge virtually to the mouth of International Avenue.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by googspecial

Firepark... Just no. I foresee swaths of surface lots if it goes here. There's just too much space, it would be difficult to entice 3rd parties to build there due to it's distance from the core, and being a dead zone on non-event days. (Yes I've read all the pro points for it, but just no)

That's a joke of a comment. All along we've been talking about a wider mind-set development that includes commercial, services / restaurants, residential, and with direct LRT access.

Your drawing just demonstrated how large Firepark is to be able to do all of that (not to mention MaxBell lands to the south, which would all need to be part of a master plan).

Railtown was confirmed to not be nearly large enough, as you plopped the stadium on top of the bus barns, which are not available.