New Downtown Calgary Arena

[ByeByeBaby]

Over the past 5 seasons of regular season games (44 games):

• Only 2 games were on days with over 1 mm of precipitation
• Only 2 games were on days with a mean temperature below 0
• 11 games (1/4) were on days with a mean temperature below 10 (which corresponds roughly to high of +15, low of 4)
• 14 games had attendance below 28,000
• 16 games had attendance above 30,000 - 12 of these involved Edmonton or Saskatchewan, including the top 11 games

There appears to be very little temperature effect on attendance. The only significant factor I can see is the opponent. (Note that this is true elsewhere - Edmonton averaged 34.3K so far this year, but it's actually 41K vs Calgary/Sask and 30.4K against everybody else.)

I'm not sure how much improved facilities really make a difference; Winnipeg moved from a 60 year old stadium to a brand new one in 2013 and saw attendance increase by 8% (capacity increased by 13%). Great news, except that was last season; this season their attendance is back where it was; slightly lower in fact.

It's also worth noting that the Stamps have been doing very well in recent years; attendance will be higher than the long term average - sometime, there will be a couple of consecutive 5 win seasons and the club will still have to pay to operate the stadium then.

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

I think if you're going to go through the trouble of building an indoor stadium, 27K seems too small IMO. At least go to ~35K. We get some big crowds at Stamps games in the middle of summer, but come Western Final time, the crowds are actually less. I know weather is part of it, as I know lots of people who have gone to a November game and vowed not to go again because it was too cold.

I suspect it would be more expensive to build a roof than to host Western Final games with very cold temperatures at Sam Boyd Stadium in Las Vegas; it would cost maybe $15M to fly everybody down there and put them up in a hotel for a couple of days.

[93JC]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I suspect it would be more expensive to build a roof than to host Western Final games with very cold temperatures at Sam Boyd Stadium in Las Vegas; it would cost maybe $15M to fly everybody down there and put them up in a hotel for a couple of days.

I kind of like the idea, but it would cost a lot (probably not as much as a new roof for McMahon, but a lot) to expand Sam Boyd to fit a Canadian football field. Sam Boyd is too short.

[Tills13]

Originally Posted by speedog

Considering average attendance for the 2013 and 2014 seasons has been between 29,000 and 30,000 and that is sold tickets, not actual warm bodies in the stands, then maybe 27,000 is not unrealistic.

But if it's an indoor facility, could that increase bodies in the stands or would it drive some away? There is something about watching a football game outdoors even when it's cold and especially so on a warm summer evening.

But that's 2014 stats. Calgary is growing and so is our fanbase (by definition), so why build for the now and have to do it again in 20 years?

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Tills13

But that's 2014 stats. Calgary is growing and so is our fanbase (by definition), so why build for the now and have to do it again in 20 years?

Interestingly enough, the trend in many new arenas has been smaller seating capacities - not sure if it's the same for football stadiums. I agree that 33-35,000 would be better but maybe 27,000 is a nice sweet spot that allows the Flames to push up pricing a bit for Stampeder games - again this is all based upon something that someone posted on the Calgary Puck forums, could all be a bunch of baloney as best as best as any of us knows. I do know that any of the staff I know that work for the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation say they aren't aware of any future plans or maybe they do and they're just not saying.

[93JC]

Originally Posted by speedog

Interestingly enough, the trend in many new arenas has been smaller seating capacities

In some cases but not all, and "new arenas" is a pretty small sample size. The capacity of new NHL/NBA arenas definitely peaked between 1980 and 2000, but there have only been four new NHL arenas since 2000 and they're all, save the Prudential Center in Newark vs. the Izod Center in East Rutherford, NJ, bigger than their predecessors.

The real trend is bigger backs-of-house and public 'amenity' spaces: wider concourses, multiple concourses, bigger washrooms, more concessions stands, more in-arena restaurants, more gift shops, bigger gift shops, etc.

It's true that the newest arenas are smaller in capacity than many of the older buildings in the league; of the five newest buildings in the NHL the American Airlines Center (2001) is 14th, Consol Energy Center (2010) is 16th, Prudential Center (2007) is 22nd, Gila River Arena is 26th and MTS Centre (2004) in Winnipeg is 30th. However, the second- and third-smallest buildings are two of the oldest: Nassau Coliseum and Rexall Place, respectively. The oldest, Madison Square Garden (1968), is 20th.

Of the top 10 NHL arenas in seating capacity only two are older than 1994: the Saddledome (1983) and Joe Louis Arena (1979). (5th and 4th oldest.)


Finding an optimum seating capacity has to take into account many, many factors. Cost to build more seats vs. time it would take to recoup the cost of those extra seats is a big one. For example the MTS Centre in Winnipeg probably isn't worth expanding, even though it's a comparatively small 15,000 or so seats. Any more seats would require building a third bowl, which would be "cheap seats". The cheap seats would never pay for themselves.

By contrast the Barclay's Center in Brooklyn, which the Islanders will move into next year, could probably be rearranged to accommodate more "sale-able" seats in future. Right now the official hockey capacity is a shade over 15,000 but there's about 18,000 in the building. Unfortunately it was designed primarily for basketball (as was America West Arena in Phoenix), and the hockey layout isn't centered. The scoreboard hangs over one of the blue lines and one end of the arena is almost entirely "obstructed view" seats. They can probably fix it, and it would probably be worth it, just not right now.

Market plays a huge part too, of course. The Bridgestone Arena in Nashville is a little over 17,000, one of the smaller arenas, but it works pretty well for Nashville. The BB&T Center near Miami is over 19,000, and is frankly far too big for the hockey market in South Florida. Most of the upper bowl is curtained off.

A new Flames arena won't necessarily be smaller in capacity than the Saddledome. It will almost certainly have more luxury boxes and suites, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that the new one is similar to the Saddledome's current 19,289. The Bell Centre in Montreal is over 21,000, and the United Center in Chicago is over 22,000 counting standing room.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by 93JC

In some cases but not all, and "new arenas" is a pretty small sample size. The capacity of new NHL/NBA arenas definitely peaked between 1980 and 2000, but there have only been four new NHL arenas since 2000 and they're all, save the Prudential Center in Newark vs. the Izod Center in East Rutherford, NJ, bigger than their predecessors.

I'd say we would see a case of these arenas increasing in capacity to find the optimum capacity while the new arena here would see a reduction to achieve the optimum capacity.

18-18,500 seems to be the sweet spot. Remember, the last rows of seats cost the most to build and bring in the least amount of revenue.

[93JC]

If they have no problem selling out 19,289 for ten years straight I doubt a 1,300 seat reduction is "optimum" for Calgary.

Depends on the arena layout, of course. The new one will certainly have a bigger footprint; how much is it worth taking a chunk out of a concourse area to make room for seats?

[speedog]

Originally Posted by 93JC

If they have no problem selling out 19,289 for ten years straight I doubt a 1,300 seat reduction is "optimum" for Calgary.

Stampeders are selling out at 19,289? Thought the recently re-kindled discussion was around the stadium at a proposed seating capacity of 27,000 and not the arena - looks like there's two disjointed discussions happening.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by 93JC

If they have no problem selling out 19,289 for ten years straight I doubt a 1,300 seat reduction is "optimum" for Calgary.

More suites and club seats come at the expense of seats but you make more $. Especially with how they put the suites in now (generally two rows with the club seats wedged between creating a "3 tier" look.) This really pushes that next tier of seats back to the point where you're really adding to the construction costs by adding those last few seats.

It could very well be 19,000+, it just seems to be very unlikely given the trend on recent arena construction.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by 93JC

If they have no problem selling out 19,289 for ten years straight I doubt a 1,300 seat reduction is "optimum" for Calgary.

Depends on the arena layout, of course. The new one will certainly have a bigger footprint; how much is it worth taking a chunk out of a concourse area to make room for seats?

Here's how it works. 300 level seats bring in chump change for the Flames.

Suites bring in lots of money for the Flames.

Arena will be 18,000ish with a huge increase in suites and decrease in 'cheap seats'

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

27000 better come with the potential for extra seating to be added for major events.

For an indoor stadium that might not be an easy ask.

[93JC]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Here's how it works. 300 level seats bring in chump change for the Flames.

Suites bring in lots of money for the Flames.

Arena will be 18,000ish with a huge increase in suites and decrease in 'cheap seats'

I didn't say there would be a "300 level", or "cheap seats", just that seating capacity probably won't go down much, if at all.

I bet the new arena will have a bigger lower bowl (on the order of 9,000 seats vs. 4,800 in the Saddledome), about the same number of total suites (Saddledome has 72) located around the arena at the top of the lower and/or bottom of the upper bowl, and 9,000-10,000 seats in an upper bowl (about the same size as the Saddledome).

I bet the sightlines will be shittier from just about everywhere in the arena, however it'll have enormous concourses by comparison (multi-level concourse for sure, probably and entirely separate club level) and at least double the washrooms and concessions stands.

Book it.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by 93JC

I didn't say there would be a "300 level", or "cheap seats", just that seating capacity probably won't go down much, if at all.

I bet the new arena will have a bigger lower bowl (on the order of 9,000 seats vs. 4,800 in the Saddledome), about the same number of total suites (Saddledome has 72) located around the arena at the top of the lower and/or bottom of the upper bowl, and 9,000-10,000 seats in an upper bowl (about the same size as the Saddledome).

I bet the sightlines will be shittier from just about everywhere in the arena, however it'll have enormous concourses by comparison (multi-level concourse for sure, probably and entirely separate club level) and at least double the washrooms and concessions stands.

Book it.

I'd say the only way the number of suites stays the same is if you have a lot of much bigger suites. You're probably looking at more of a Bell Centre or Air Canada Centre number: ~120. The concourse for these would be shared with the club level that will likely be wedged between the two rows of suites.

[Innersoul1]

The Barclay Center is certainly a sad venue for hockey. See the off centred configuration here: http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hock...enter-hockey-rink-is-not-an-ideal-layout

I have been to a number of NHL rinks. I would still have to say that the Bell Centre in Montreal is a standout. It doesn't have all the extra bells and whistles that are characteristic of many of the newer rinks in the U.S.. But, the seating configuration is second to none. The boxes and executive seating all exist on their own private level (300), the lower bowl is massive with great sightlines and their cheap seats (500 level) are fantastic, all served by escalators too. You can be out of the building from the 500 level in no time.

[googspecial]

^^

One thing I have to say about Bell Centre is that I found the concourses to be much more narrow compared to other NHL arenas I've been to (Saddledome, MTS Centre & Rexal)

[Innersoul1]

Yes, certainly the concourses are quite narrow. I would agree with that 100%. It has a lot to do with the site restrictions. But, those smaller concourses are well serviced in terms of vendors and washrooms. Makes the space much more efficient. Additionally getting in and out of the building is quite smooth.

[CorporateWhore]

In terms of the public space and concourses, my favorites have been the arena in Buffalo (called First Niagara Center at the moment), and Prudential Center in Newark. Both are nice and airy, and easy to get around.

Buffalo was one of the best arena experiences Ive had in general, and that was built in the mid 90s. Just a really nicely designed arena that is easy to get around in, and gives you a great atmosphere inside.

Newark however is way too cavernous inside the arena itself. It feels like a stadium, and doesn't have that close-in feel that I think is great for sports like hockey. But they have a fantastic concourse.

[93JC]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

The Barclay Center is certainly a sad venue for hockey. See the off centred configuration here: http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hock...enter-hockey-rink-is-not-an-ideal-layout

[Coldrsx]

Oh hi guys


(http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/...Shot2014-10-28at125549PM_zps4996df95.png)

[Spring2008]

^It's great you can capture everything going on in the inner-city deadmonton in one shot, but please keep your spam messages for the Canada section.