New Downtown Calgary Arena

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

True, but I believe Rylucky was referring to an arena, not stadium. The Stamps only play 10 or 11 home games a year, compared to how many for the Flames? Much more important to consider the arena's placement within walking distance to a mainstreet.

I didn't want to put words in his mouth - he did say stadium. Additionally, the touchstone for new construction was CalgaryNEXT, a combined stadium and arena. That needs 1.) space, and 2.) if not done extremely carefully, can really create a massive deadzone in and of itself given the footprint and logistics in the immediate surrounding.

[Luk_o]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

True, but I believe Rylucky was referring to an arena, not stadium. The Stamps only play 10 or 11 home games a year, compared to how many for the Flames? Much more important to consider the arena's placement within walking distance to a mainstreet.

Absolutely. The CFL is an unpopular niche league - As a long time fan, I wish this wasn't the case, but it is the reality. And they play only a handful of games as you alluded to. The thing about moving the stadium downtown, is that you would also need to include some significant amount of surface parking to maintain the tailgating and lot activities that is a massive component of the culture / game day experience in Calgary. As surface parking should be minimized as much as possible anywhere for downtown development, the CalgaryNext proposal should ax the stadium / field house component as the Arena doesn't require the same requirements for extensive surface parking. Keep the Stamps playing at McMahon with some renos, and it would be fine. The popularity and elements surrounding the tenants do not warrant significant funding from the public for a large scale development downtown. Arena is completely different. Much more public interest and benefit for investment downtown.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Luk_o

Absolutely. The CFL is an unpopular niche league - As a long time fan, I wish this wasn't the case, but it is the reality. And they play only a handful of games as you alluded to. The thing about moving the stadium downtown, is that you would also need to include some significant amount of surface parking to maintain the tailgating and lot activities that is a massive component of the culture / game day experience in Calgary. As surface parking should be minimized as much as possible anywhere for downtown development, the CalgaryNext proposal should ax the stadium / field house component as the Arena doesn't require the same requirements for extensive surface parking. Keep the Stamps playing at McMahon with some renos, and it would be fine. The popularity and elements surrounding the tenants do not warrant significant funding from the public for a large scale development downtown. Arena is completely different. Much more public interest and benefit for investment downtown.

The only thing I would say you are missing is the lost revenue from concerts and events at McMahon due to noise complaints from the surrounding communities...

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Luk_o

Absolutely. The CFL is an unpopular niche league - As a long time fan, I wish this wasn't the case, but it is the reality.

Then how do you explain the fact that it is one of the best attended professional sports leagues in the world and one of the top TV draws in Canada?

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by Luk_o

Absolutely. The CFL is an unpopular niche league - As a long time fan, I wish this wasn't the case, but it is the reality. And they play only a handful of games as you alluded to. The thing about moving the stadium downtown, is that you would also need to include some significant amount of surface parking to maintain the tailgating and lot activities that is a massive component of the culture / game day experience in Calgary. As surface parking should be minimized as much as possible anywhere for downtown development, the CalgaryNext proposal should ax the stadium / field house component as the Arena doesn't require the same requirements for extensive surface parking. Keep the Stamps playing at McMahon with some renos, and it would be fine. The popularity and elements surrounding the tenants do not warrant significant funding from the public for a large scale development downtown. Arena is completely different. Much more public interest and benefit for investment downtown.

I believe this was discussed earlier in the thread, but McMahon's problems are at the concourse level. There is more than enough room to push these areas out and double the space. Build new bathroom facilities and more vendor spots. Construct proper protection from wind and rain on the concourse level, improve the connection between sides. Could even add seating to the end zones, although I don't think this is necessary. It's not hard to re-imagine McMahon as a much-improved facility.

Do it one side at a time (while maximizing offseason time) and the facility never needs to close.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

I believe this was discussed earlier in the thread, but McMahon's problems are at the concourse level. There is more than enough room to push these areas out and double the space. Build new bathroom facilities and more vendor spots. Construct proper protection from wind and rain on the concourse level, improve the connection between sides. Could even add seating to the end zones, although I don't think this is necessary. It's not hard to re-imagine McMahon as a much-improved facility.

Do it one side at a time (while maximizing offseason time) and the facility never needs to close.

+1.

I never quite understood the rationale behind a McMahon replacement being so integrated into the arena plan. McMahon is dilapidated but can be vastly improved with limited investment. As others mentioned, the economics and support for the arena is vastly different than a stadium that only sees a few dozen events a year, many without a need for much seating at all.

I get it that the Flames ownership would love the easiness of a single location so they can run things more integrated, but that doesn't seem like enough rationale on it's own to ask for another few dozen acres of prime downtown land in addition to an arena (which has vastly different location criteria and economic throughput).

Can someone enlighten me to why they need to be combined?

[MalcolmTucker]

Shared back of house space, and training space. Shared built in TV production areas. Combined on site box-office and retail.

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

I believe this was discussed earlier in the thread, but McMahon's problems are at the concourse level. There is more than enough room to push these areas out and double the space. Build new bathroom facilities and more vendor spots. Construct proper protection from wind and rain on the concourse level, improve the connection between sides. Could even add seating to the end zones, although I don't think this is necessary. It's not hard to re-imagine McMahon as a much-improved facility.

Do it one side at a time (while maximizing offseason time) and the facility never needs to close.

IMO the debate isn't whether or not McMahon could be improved - of course it's possible but is that enough to bring in the younger fans now and in the future?

Currently, I have seasons tickets but I can't give them to my son and his friends. Yet when he sees Regina's or Winnipeg's new stadiums on TV he's like, "I'd sure like to see a game there".

Having said that, I don't think there's enough of an appetite for a new stadium here - even when the Stamps are good they still play second fiddle to the Flames so I fully expect we'll end up with some kind of renos at McMahon and we'll just have to live with that.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

Having said that, I don't think there's enough of an appetite for a new stadium here - even when the Stamps are good they still play second fiddle to the Flames so I fully expect we'll end up with some kind of renos at McMahon and we'll just have to live with that.

Why can't there be both? Winnipeg is half your city's size and we managed to get a new NHL rink and CFL stadium built.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by esquire

Why can't there be both? Winnipeg is half your city's size and we managed to get a new NHL rink and CFL stadium built.

Because people in Calgary tend to figure that the tax revolt types in Calgary are a much higher percentage of the population here than they actually are, and hence try not to burn political capital on a stadium when the city is building a $5 billion transit line and in the middle of a similar cost roadway.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Shared back of house space, and training space. Shared built in TV production areas. Combined on site box-office and retail.

Exactly, combining these will save them money. Plus, building 1 really big building is always cheaper than building 2 big buildings...

[Luk_o]

Originally Posted by esquire

Then how do you explain the fact that it is one of the best attended professional sports leagues in the world and one of the top TV draws in Canada?

Both of these statements don't account for much when we're talking public interest in a demographic as large as Calgary, and for people that actually will come out and pay to watch a CFL game live, and utilize a stadium in Calgary. The Stampeders had a perfect home record this year, were by far the best team in the CFL regular season and didn't sell out a single game. With a couple exceptions (Rider match-up, Labor Day), they didn't come close. Of course the economy had a play in this, but this isn't unusual for past years as well. The team with the largest metro in the country behind its name has dismal attendance. The Grey Cup didn't sell out, even after practically giving away tickets. Aside a few markets in Canada, the CFL is unpopular, or people are indifferent to it on average. BUT there is a very passionate following by the small percentage who do like it. I'm by no means saying that it is irrelevant or anything along those lines.

[tomthumb2]

FYI: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...-says-ken-king

From this you'd have to assume they'll just do some kind of lame upgrades to McDump

[Luk_o]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

The only thing I would say you are missing is the lost revenue from concerts and events at McMahon due to noise complaints from the surrounding communities...

Valid point. Hard to come to a solution given its location. All I can say is that the problem exists as it stands now. It will continue to have the same scrutiny from the community for concert events after any reno is done.

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by Luk_o

Both of these statements don't account for much when we're talking public interest in a demographic as large as Calgary, and for people that actually will come out and pay to watch a CFL game live, and utilize a stadium in Calgary. The Stampeders had a perfect home record this year, were by far the best team in the CFL regular season and didn't sell out a single game. With a couple exceptions (Rider match-up, Labor Day), they didn't come close. Of course the economy had a play in this, but this isn't unusual for past years as well. The team with the largest metro in the country behind its name has dismal attendance. The Grey Cup didn't sell out, even after practically giving away tickets. Aside a few markets in Canada, the CFL is unpopular, or people are indifferent to it on average. BUT there is a very passionate following by the small percentage who do like it. I'm by no means saying that it is irrelevant or anything along those lines.

You nailed it - although I think attendance would be better here if we actually had a professional grade stadium instead of expanded high school stands.

[DLLB]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

FYI: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...-says-ken-king

From this you'd have to assume they'll just do some kind of lame upgrades to McDump

McDump. Exactly! It is a disgrace to the city.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Can someone enlighten me to why they need to be combined?

Because then they city is getting an arena AND a stadium for the price of just one building. And the city will own it after, so really the city is getting a world class building for nothing. Hell, when you factor in the money the Flames are putting in the owners are basically paying the city to own it. [/Ken King]

They don't NEED to be combined but the Flames would really, really like it if they were because then they can make even more money with a more efficient operation. When you're hoping to get public money to do it, you might as well aim high and hope nobody asks these questions.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

You nailed it - although I think attendance would be better here if we actually had a professional grade stadium instead of expanded high school stands.

Impossible to know this in advance of course, but Winnipeg's experience doesn't provide strong support for this.

New stadium average attendance per game, each season 2013-2016: 30,637.1 - 28,314.1 - 26,745.9 - 25,935.8

Old stadium, each season 2000-2012: 25,259.4 - 27,033 - 27,559.7 - 27,225 - 24,218.4 - 24,317.2 - 26,987.8 - 27,701 - 27,150.8 - 25,720 - 26,083.2 - 29,558.7 - 27,981.1

A nice little bump in 2013 and 2014 (new stadium smell!), but 2015 and 2016 were firmly inside recent historical norms.

If the Stamps were to get an indoor stadium, they could probably expect to have an easier sell to fair-weather fans, especially for the autumn games. On the other hand, ticket prices are bound to be more expensive, so you'll lose a few price-sensitive fans in the process.

(Data source: https://stats.cfldb.ca/team/winnipeg...tendance/2016/ and similar web pages for each year.)

[Luk_o]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Impossible to know this in advance of course, but Winnipeg's experience doesn't provide strong support for this.

New stadium average attendance per game, each season 2013-2016: 30,637.1 - 28,314.1 - 26,745.9 - 25,935.8

Old stadium, each season 2000-2012: 25,259.4 - 27,033 - 27,559.7 - 27,225 - 24,218.4 - 24,317.2 - 26,987.8 - 27,701 - 27,150.8 - 25,720 - 26,083.2 - 29,558.7 - 27,981.1

A nice little bump in 2013 and 2014 (new stadium smell!), but 2015 and 2016 were firmly inside recent historical norms.

If the Stamps were to get an indoor stadium, they could probably expect to have an easier sell to fair-weather fans, especially for the autumn games. On the other hand, ticket prices are bound to be more expensive, so you'll lose a few price-sensitive fans in the process.

(Data source: https://stats.cfldb.ca/team/winnipeg...tendance/2016/ and similar web pages for each year.)

No doubt a better stadium would improve attendance. Realistically, I think you would still hover around a solid 35k mark on average in Calgary.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Impossible to know this in advance of course, but Winnipeg's experience doesn't provide strong support for this.

New stadium average attendance per game, each season 2013-2016: 30,637.1 - 28,314.1 - 26,745.9 - 25,935.8

Old stadium, each season 2000-2012: 25,259.4 - 27,033 - 27,559.7 - 27,225 - 24,218.4 - 24,317.2 - 26,987.8 - 27,701 - 27,150.8 - 25,720 - 26,083.2 - 29,558.7 - 27,981.1

A nice little bump in 2013 and 2014 (new stadium smell!), but 2015 and 2016 were firmly inside recent historical norms.

It's more complicated than whether a new venue draws fans or not... Bomber attendance at IGF was hindered by an abysmal team which has tested the patience of the fanbase.

But that said, Bomber revenues were more than 50% higher in 2015 vs. the last season at the old stadium in 2012. (The Bombers release their numbers as a community owned team.) This is pretty consistent with what we've seen in the NHL, where the current buildings generally have only marginally larger seating capacities than the buildings that were replaced throughout the 90s and 00s, yet revenues are far higher. I mean, if it's strictly a question of per-game attendance, then the Oilers could have just stayed at Rexall Place for all the difference that Rogers Place makes in that regard.