New Downtown Calgary Arena

[s211]

Is a covered stadium honestly required in Calgary?

Where have all the real men gone, comes to mind.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by s211

Is a covered stadium honestly required in Calgary?

Where have all the real men gone, comes to mind.

Covered makes more business sense. Can be a better year-round venue for concerts and the like. But the men have gotten used to great TV coverage from the warm comfort of their home. People may be willing to pay for atmosphere, so long as their fingers aren't too cold to hold their beer.

However a retractable roof is a must IMO. I'm willing to accept the new realities of stadiums, but I am not willing to sell out that much.


As posted on CP, the new Vikings stadium will have a glass roof to allow for natural light. Take this idea, cut the capacity in half for the CFL and allow for the roof to retract, then you have one hell of a stadium.

[Calgarian]

That would be a fantastic stadium to have in Calgary.

[CCF]

Coming recently from Regina (where the new 'multi-purpose' stadium is under construction) the conversation centred around roof, no roof, or retractable roof. I suspect this will become a common theme within the Calgary context should a new stadium be part of the overall redevelopment.

For the record, Regina's stadium will be exposed to the elements due to costs of implementing a retractable roof.

[tomthumb2]

From the Flames perspective, having a roof means more ROI. They can use it 12 months a year and I would imagine an MLS team would be an ideal second tenant for them. Plus doesn't soccer start in April or something? Not sure how they'd do that with potential for 3 feet of snow on the ground.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

From the Flames perspective, having a roof means more ROI. They can use it 12 months a year and I would imagine an MLS team would be an ideal second tenant for them. Plus doesn't soccer start in April or something? Not sure how they'd do that with potential for 3 feet of snow on the ground.

This was the same perspective in Regina. That having a roof would allow the facility to be used throughout the year. However, football stadiums aren't as flexible in their ability to host other events (i.e. when else can you draw 40,000 fans?). Concerts, trade shows, other types of entertainment are more suited for a hockey arena at 20,000 or so seats with much better sight lines, atmosphere, etc.

Of course, I also recognize that context plays a part in this discussion. Calgary being a large Canadian city compared to Regina as a mid-sized city. Calgary has obviously more drawing power for events.

I guess really the question comes down to, how often would a football stadium be used for not football related events (10 games per year plus playoffs) and does its use justify the added cost of a retractable roof. I don't have an answer for that, but someone making the decisions certainly will!

[tomthumb2]

^^^ Good points! When you think about it - not many outdoor concerts and even then, they are usually in the summer time anyway. So for only 9 or 10 football games a year it seems kind of dumb to have a retractable roof. Of course - IF soccer is involved, that could be a game changer.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by CCF

However, football stadiums aren't as flexible in their ability to host other events (i.e. when else can you draw 40,000 fans?). Concerts, trade shows, other types of entertainment are more suited for a hockey arena

Exhibitions / trade shows need raw square footage, and so arenas do not work, but covered football stadiums do.

BC Place:
http://www.sensesinspired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Eat-Vancouver-2014-Trade-Show-01.jpg
http://vancouverscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/EATtradeshow.jpg

If Sunalta Station becomes part of the free fare zone, a flexible facility including stadium and arena could potentially take some of the BMO's bloating away.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Exhibitions / trade shows need raw square footage, and so arenas do not work, but covered football stadiums do.

BC Place:
http://www.sensesinspired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Eat-Vancouver-2014-Trade-Show-01.jpg
http://vancouverscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/EATtradeshow.jpg

If Sunalta Station becomes part of the free fare zone, a flexible facility including stadium and arena could potentially take some of the BMO's bloating away.

That's fair. But how many trade shows or exhibitions are held each year? Are they enough to justify the additional cost of a retractable roof?

Again, I don't know. If the finances work or can be justified, then great - do it. A retractable roof would obviously be a bonus.

[roman]

Originally Posted by CCF

That's fair. But how many trade shows or exhibitions are held each year? Are they enough to justify the additional cost of a retractable roof?

Again, I don't know. If the finances work or can be justified, then great - do it. A retractable roof would obviously be a bonus.

I would be happy with a glass covered roof or a retractable roof - anything would be better than what we currently have. I wish they would make the announcement and release the drawings already.

[roman]

Originally Posted by roman

I would be happy with a glass covered roof or a retractable roof - anything would be better than what we currently have. I wish they would make the announcement and release the drawings already.

In my opinion it would be better if the new stadium were enclosed rather than open air - Calgary's weather is just too unpredictable. Hopefully it will be enclosed.

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

From the Flames perspective, having a roof means more ROI. They can use it 12 months a year and I would imagine an MLS team would be an ideal second tenant for them. Plus doesn't soccer start in April or something? Not sure how they'd do that with potential for 3 feet of snow on the ground.

The MLS season started last weekend. So it's pretty early. It's pretty funny to watch some of the teams who play on outdoor grass fields as the turf quality is just 🞵🞵🞵🞵 at this time of the year.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a retractable roof as this would make the stadium much more flexible for a variety of uses year round. As a result of limited government funding, economics will really come into play and the Flames will have to glean as much revenue out of this project as possible.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by CCF

That's fair. But how many trade shows or exhibitions are held each year? Are they enough to justify the additional cost of a retractable roof?

Again, I don't know. If the finances work or can be justified, then great - do it. A retractable roof would obviously be a bonus.

Don't have a precise answer, but the BMO centre's schedule is absolutely packed, and Calgary loses many conferences every year because lack of facilities, or no space in a schedule.

Each event of this type is 3-5 days of revenue on average, as the actual event is 1-3 days (and sometimes more). So that means each item is multiple revenue days.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by roman

In my opinion it would be better if the new stadium were enclosed rather than open air - Calgary's weather is just too unpredictable. Hopefully it will be enclosed.

Sorry? Unless you are predicting a sudden climate shift towards possible, sudden hurricane conditions upon completion of the stadium, I have no idea what you're talking about.

People have been watching football outside here for over 100 years and weather is an important part of the game. Also, I can't imagine being stuck inside during the beautiful sunny days we often get for summer games. Some people are such wusses these days. Put on some snow pants and a toque and get out there.

[SHOFEAR]

Indoor football is lame. Come on Calgary, your better than that.

[Tills13]

I like watching football and I don't like the cold. Sue me.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

From the Flames perspective, having a roof means more ROI. They can use it 12 months a year and I would imagine an MLS team would be an ideal second tenant for them. Plus doesn't soccer start in April or something? Not sure how they'd do that with potential for 3 feet of snow on the ground.

MLS? You do realize this is Calgary, right? By the time we get an MLS team in 2040, the owners of whatever new stadium is built will be saying it's too old and small and we need a new one.

[McMurph]

Enclosed arenas are usually crappy for the spectator. I remember some absolutely miserable times watching the Expos in the Big O. Only part of the misery was the fact that I hate baseball -- I actually enjoyed a game (and a decent beer) a while back in SF. There is a reason why they've been blowing up domes far more often than they've been building them.

That said, I think MLS in Canada could use some sort of climate control, especially in Calgary. They may play through a pretty lousy winter in Europe, but 4 degrees and rain is different than -15 with snow. A retractable roof would be ideal... theoretically. But rarely has one worked on all measures, particularly wrt spectator experience and cost.

The glass approach in Minneapolis is unique. I still think it will be a far cry from the joy of watching a game outside in good weather. I also can't believe that they squeezed 1/2 billion dollars out of the city and state to build it.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^Part (most) of the problem with the big O and any indoor stadium is it is made for many uses meaning compromises are made that make some events worse than others. That's the definition of multipurpose: sucking at everything in some manner.

It's 14C in Calgary today. I'm thinking MLS in April will always work.

[Ramsayfarian]

Covered, uncovered. I don't care either way. They could even go subterranean for all I care. Just as long as the tax payer isn't footing the bill and infrastructure improvements are kept to a dull roar.

Digging for a massive complex might be an easy fix for the contamination issues in the West Village.