New Downtown Calgary Arena

[suburbia]

Richmond Oval

Here's an image from how it was during the Olympics for long track. It also provides height scale. Could use more for some sports, but doesn't need much more. Would obviously need more seating too.
https://raic.org/sites/default/files/awards/images/award_recipients/richmond-5.jpg

After conversion on conclusion of Olympics:
http://richmondoval.ca/docs/virtual_tour.htm

Here's an overview image - the track on the left is 200m, just to provide scale - so this much larger than a full-on 400m track in total:
http://www.solaripedia.com/images/large/2347.jpg

I've not embedded images because I don't want to bother with all of the appropriate copyright disclaimers and the like. Others can do it if they wish, of course.

I think this structure is much better than some of the other ugly facilities that have been shared, while also being much larger and flexible.

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by suburbia

That looks like only a 200m track, and not even full size.

That being said, I don't think we discount it just because something exactly like what would be needed doesn't exist. Heck, our Olympic Oval has a 440M track around the perimeter with some stands, a long jump pit and the rest of it. It also has an artificial surface they've laid out for soccer games in the past. What it doesn't have is proper washroom facilities, entry and exit bandwidth and nor a proper reception / lobby / concourse area, HVAC and seating beyond 4K, but the structure is interesting. The Richmond Oval is much better on many fronts (concourse, washrooms, entry/exit bandwidth), and perhaps that is a starting point touchstone. More seats means higher roof, so those items are integrated and not much of an issue.

These two structures, in addition to actual field-houses, may actually help our imaginations.

Of course, what do I know.

I certainly agree with you on the front that just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't be done. That's the marvel of engineering. The Richmond Oval is certainly a good starting point but what Calgary is potentially (rumored) proposing isn't just a step up, it is a giant leap. I think the reason why something like this doesn't exist is because when you get to a fieldhouse of that size it just makes financial and engineering sense to go to a stadium. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Malcolm, your visuals all makes sense, it's just the addition of the spectator stands that make the roof spans truly gigantic.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

That is money for the field-house, which was identified as a priority for funding by city council iirc. If that money can be leveraged into something bigger, then great!

I also expect them to ask for and get the super favourable tax treatment they enjoy in the dome, and an interesting partnership with a CRL to pay for cleanup, LRT upgrades and associated neighbourhood costs.

I have no problem with the money being leveraged in principal, but we still need lots of clarification. Such as: If the city pays $200m for this fieldhouse does the city then own it? Who collects the revenue from the events there? Who pays to maintain it? Is it going to be as accessible to the public as if the city built their own field house? Who's going to run it and will it be targeted at the same kinds of uses that the field house it 'replaces' would be? (I.E. if it shuts down periodically to do trade shows formerly held at BMO, then is the public receiving the full benefit of a field house?) And so on...

[MalcolmTucker]

Does the city own Westside, or does the Westside Regional Recreation Society? What about the YMCA's? Does anyone really care? Does it have any real impact on users?

A big step would be bringing the field-house society onboard from a political perspective and signing a MOU on what availability would look like.

The Olympic Oval is used for non-sports things like the regional science fair. Should we really spell out covenants that the facility might not be able to undo and tie their hands? I'd rather leave that matter to a board of directors the city has already entrusted (at least at this early stage) with the project.

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Richmond Oval

Here's an image from how it was during the Olympics for long track. It also provides height scale. Could use more for some sports, but doesn't need much more. Would obviously need more seating too.
https://raic.org/sites/default/files/awards/images/award_recipients/richmond-5.jpg

After conversion on conclusion of Olympics:
http://richmondoval.ca/docs/virtual_tour.htm

Here's an overview image - the track on the left is 200m, just to provide scale - so this much larger than a full-on 400m track in total:
http://www.solaripedia.com/images/large/2347.jpg

I've not embedded images because I don't want to bother with all of the appropriate copyright disclaimers and the like. Others can do it if they wish, of course.

I think this structure is much better than some of the other ugly facilities that have been shared, while also being much larger and flexible.

It's a beautiful facility and the wood beams are gorgeous. But it's max capacity for speed skating was only 8000. The height and spans for a structure designed to fit larger than that will be quite significant.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

It's a beautiful facility and the wood beams are gorgeous. But it's max capacity for speed skating was only 8000. The height and spans for a structure designed to fit larger than that will be quite significant.

You guys are really funny. Several people have highlighted facilities that have much smaller spans than the richmond oval. The richmond oval has a main open area of 220,000sf, so much larger than mcmahon's floor (which is not even 120,000 sf) and substantially larger than a 400m olympic running track. Correct, only 8,000seating as it is built, but suggesting the spans are not in the same league when at the same time others are showing mini-spans across a 200m track is really not fair. I'd rather the oval as a starting point touchstone than say that small track in Doha or the one in Birmingham, or the fugly north dakota 300m track.

Some stats about the richmond oval:
- Plan area of 270,000 sf, with a main open arena of 220,000 sf and a total floor area of more than 500,000 sf
- spans (width) are 330 ft and 660 sf long (CFL football field 330' long X 195' wide, so the richmond oval is as wide as a CFL field is long)
- it has underground parking

The one you'd want for Calgary may need to be a pinch taller and marginally wider, but not much. This is a MUCH better touchstone as a starting point than anything else I've seen here in the last day.

Gripe: There are many thoughtful and intelligent people on this forum, but often I really feel picked on, and the above is a perfect example. I'm not sure it is because all of you are 12 and lack maturity or true wisdom, or perhaps because you are older but never really felt loved and so are going to be bullies.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Does the city own Westside, or does the Westside Regional Recreation Society? What about the YMCA's? Does anyone really care? Does it have any real impact on users?

A big step would be bringing the field-house society onboard from a political perspective and signing a MOU on what availability would look like.

The Olympic Oval is used for non-sports things like the regional science fair. Should we really spell out covenants that the facility might not be able to undo and tie their hands? I'd rather leave that matter to a board of directors the city has already entrusted (at least at this early stage) with the project.

I think it's a good idea that the city have an idea what it expects from a $200M investment, yes.

As for bringing the field house society onboard, that's a great idea, but will it be possible if KK owns the facility or demands exclusive rights to operate it? My point is that we should know these things before we divert money from a different facility.

I'm not trying to argue that multiple uses are a bad thing, just the opposite. However, the underlying point I'm trying to make is that if the city is footing the bill, the primary uses of the field, should primarily benefit the population of the city and not the pockets of KK. Hypothetical example: A science fair is a great community use, but is it profitable? What if they decide it's more profitable to compete with the convention center, the Stampede and the BMO center for trade shows and the like? Would a scenerio like this be something that we want or do we then have to spend another $200M to build the facility we thought we were getting? I can't speak for everyone else, but to me the question of who will owns the facility and how it's run is central to any discussion of giving $$$ to the project.

[craner]

A must for me is that the stands cover the track during football games.
I also really don't want an indoor stadium, kills the atmosphere at a game. Retractable roof would be the ultimate but I can't see that happening.

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by suburbia

You guys are really funny. Several people have highlighted facilities that have much smaller spans than the richmond oval. The richmond oval has a main open area of 220,000sf, so much larger than mcmahon's floor (which is not even 120,000 sf) and substantially larger than a 400m olympic running track. Correct, only 8,000seating as it is built, but suggesting the spans are not in the same league when at the same time others are showing mini-spans across a 200m track is really not fair. I'd rather the oval as a starting point touchstone than say that small track in Doha or the one in Birmingham, or the fugly north dakota 300m track.

Some stats about the richmond oval:
- Plan area of 270,000 sf, with a main open arena of 220,000 sf and a total floor area of more than 500,000 sf
- spans (width) are 330 ft and 660 sf long (CFL football field 330' long X 195' wide, so the richmond oval is as wide as a CFL field is long)
- it has underground parking

The one you'd want for Calgary may need to be a pinch taller and marginally wider, but not much. This is a MUCH better touchstone as a starting point than anything else I've seen here in the last day.

Gripe: There are many thoughtful and intelligent people on this forum, but often I really feel picked on, and the above is a perfect example. I'm not sure it is because all of you are 12 and lack maturity or true wisdom, or perhaps because you are older but never really felt loved and so are going to be bullies.

Hey Champ. I have stayed out of any of the child's play that surround you and your posts. I have better things to do. I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say, or maybe in my rush to post I have not been clear.

All I am trying to say is YES the spans are long and the area underneath those spans (floor area) is large. However, when you raise the roof of a building to accommodate the bleachers plus the necessary infrastructure and facilities (food and beverage, offices, back of house, dressing rooms, concourse) the footprint of the facility becomes becomes extremely large. This is keeping in mind that if the bleachers are to be retractable to some extent there will be no room underneath to house these kinds of services.

The only thing that i disagree with you about is the height. The roof height would have to increase significantly. I can easily kick a soccer ball in there and hit the roof. Actually did it with a volleyball while I was there (got a stern talking to as well )

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

All I am trying to say is YES the spans are long and the area underneath those spans (floor area) is large. However, when you raise the roof of a building to accommodate the bleachers plus the necessary infrastructure and facilities (food and beverage, offices, back of house, dressing rooms, concourse) the footprint of the facility becomes becomes extremely large.

I didn't mean to pick on you.

Anyway, what you're saying makes sense, but even with all of that, you'd be surprised how much 270,000 of building footprint is. Probably the same as McMahon overall. Food/beverage/other back of house don't need to be under the same span, of course, and keep in mind this building is multiple floors, so some back of house could be managed that way - in fact would need to be because the other constraint you're going to come up with in West Village is the limited space for a fieldhouse plus arena plus all additional pieces in a contiguous fashion. What can be stacked will need to be.

Anyway, if it wasn't clear in my prior note, all the other examples supplied sucked the big one.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by s211

Didn't one of the Montreal expo facilities get repurposed as a biodome or something along that line?

The velodrome from the 1976 Olympics at the base of the stadium tower was turned into the Biodôme. The olympic pool however is still there.

Some of the Expo 67 stuff was repurposed on the islands in the St. Lawrence just off downtown. For example the French expo pavilion is the city's casino. The Formula 1 race track is on the islands as is La Ronde, an amusement park.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

That is money for the field-house, which was identified as a priority for funding by city council iirc. If that money can be leveraged into something bigger, then great!

I also expect them to ask for and get the super favourable tax treatment they enjoy in the dome, and an interesting partnership with a CRL to pay for cleanup, LRT upgrades and associated neighbourhood costs.

My thoughts too. If they can work in that already allocated money into something bigger and better then why not?

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Water park

Coolest skateboard park ever.

[Innersoul1]

I believe that Riise was the first to suggest this. But what about a structure like Forsyth Barr Stadium in New Zealand? The ETFE roof is quite attractive and allows for a beautiful flood of natural light making the field level condusive to a natural grass pitch if needed. Also if we are thinking of this in terms of a field house, the natural light and general airiness make it appealing. As constructed in NZ it has a capacity of 30,000.
Credit: Trendsideas.com

Here is a clip on the construction of the complex. Footage starts at 1:13
• Video Link

This fly-through gives a good idea of the space:
• Video Link

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

I believe that Riise was the first to suggest this. But what about a structure like Forsyth Barr Stadium in New Zealand? The ETFE roof is quite attractive and allows for a beautiful flood of natural light making the field level condusive to a natural grass pitch if needed. Also if we are thinking of this in terms of a field house, the natural light and general airiness make it appealing. As constructed in NZ it has a capacity of 30,000.
Credit: Trendsideas.com

Here is a clip on the construction of the complex. Footage starts at 1:13
• Video Link

This fly-through gives a good idea of the space:
• Video Link

This one is nice - basically a metal and clear plastic version of the elegant richmond oval, but with a secondary span. I think an important consideration may end up being, not only cost, but also, the energy impacts of a massive clear-span like this in our climate. Tonnes of heating and tonnes of cooling, depending on time of year. Even if it can be justified from a cost perspective, are energy inefficient designs like this really warranted in this day and age? Also, if you built this one as is in Calgary, it may also collapse at the required snow load required.

By the way, does anyone know the specific lots they are looking at, or it this still completely up in the air? I'd think that pulling an elevated connection due north from the train station would likely be the midpoint of the complex, but then I'm wondering if there could be some elements that would be somehow shared between the two buildings and how that would look? Consider concourse / food / washrooms and the like. Perhaps conference / convention meeting rooms. Heck, maybe even some ultra high-end boxes that open up to both sides. Anyway, interested in the footprint of the potential lots, as that may also depend how this pans out. As we've seen in some other buildings, some elements being stacked may be a requirement to get the floor area needed into an urban context. Parking for such, but maybe other things also. Consider how stacked the new Vancouver Convention Centre is, as one example. Elevated access from the train to field house field level could create massive opportunities for the street level, including restaurant and retail, but also convention / meeting type spaces. Could be a massive scary Frankenstein though, but just brainstorming / thinking outside of the box (or under it).

[Surrealplaces]

That looks great. I would love to see something like that as the stadium portion.

[Innersoul1]

A few details about Forsyth Barr: The stadium was designed with the flow of natural air in mind. At the end of the field on both sides there are openings for ventilation. This allows for natural air circulation. I guess something to keep in mind is that Dunedin does not get as cold as Calgary so ventilation would be something to consider for sure.

The EFTE roof is the same roof material that is being used for the roof of the new football stadium in Minnesota. So it has been tested to withstand the weight of the snow. This is what I have found:

"Under normal weather conditions, the pressure in the cushions is 300 pascals which is around 0.2% of the pressure in a car tyre. In the event of a storm or snowfall, the pressure is increased to a maximum of 600 pascals. This is sufficient to safely support a load of up to 600 kilograms of snow per square metre. The blowers generating the compressed air are designed with dual redundancy so that even if two blowers were to fail, pneumatic support would be maintained. Even in the case of a failure of the entire pressure supply, the high loads specified would be held by the foils, which have a very high tensile strength."
Source: http://www.plastics.gl/construction/etfe...-50-t-of-snow-and-generates-electricity/

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Construction of CalgaryNEXT likely won't start for another three years if approved for downtown west end

I like how the first comment in the comments section is "Build it in Balzac by the Mall and upgrade Deerfoot and Stoney!".

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

"Under normal weather conditions, the pressure in the cushions is 300 pascals which is around 0.2% of the pressure in a car tyre. In the event of a storm or snowfall, the pressure is increased to a maximum of 600 pascals. This is sufficient to safely support a load of up to 600 kilograms of snow per square metre. The blowers generating the compressed air are designed with dual redundancy so that even if two blowers were to fail, pneumatic support would be maintained. Even in the case of a failure of the entire pressure supply, the high loads specified would be held by the foils, which have a very high tensile strength."
Source: http://www.plastics.gl/construction/etfe...-50-t-of-snow-and-generates-electricity/

So it is like the BC place roof before it got replaced. I didn't mind it, but didn't like the ears popping when you enter. The pressure you're talking about is slight, but likely differential and not absolute.

• Video Link

[MalcolmTucker]

^ No, the compressed air goes in between layers of the foil. Think the outside of the watercube in Beijing, or the Eden Project.

On Eden:

The Eden Project designers formed this ETFE material into extremely sturdy pillows, each made from three sheets of ETFE foil welded together along the sides, one on top of the other, with layers of air pumped in between them. The air layers provide increased insulation without decreasing the amount of sunlight that shines through. The coolest thing about these pillows is that they are adjustable: On a colder day, they can be pumped up with more air to provide better insulation; on a hotter day, they can be partially deflated to allow more cooling.

from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/conservationists/eden3.htm