Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
DirtyDeeds

The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Sounds good in theory but the highest tier/deck will have to have a steep slope/angle if pushed forward in order to maintain a good line of sight of the arena below.  I wonder how this will work and if they've built these arenas already.

 

36xsi3.jpg

 

From the presentation that appears to be exactly what it does ..  did some digging right after, it was from 2017 so could not find any works in progress, so quite likely if this wins the bid  we could be the groundbreaker 

Tho a comment in the YouTube comments mentions Cleveland may be considering it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

From the presentation that appears to be exactly what it does ..  did some digging right after, it was from 2017 so could not find any works in progress, so quite likely if this wins the bid  we could be the groundbreaker 

Tho a comment in the YouTube comments mentions Cleveland may be considering it 

 

Then my next question is, does the Alberta building code allow stair construction with a rise larger than the run?  We're talking likely, greater than 45 Degree incline at the highest deck.  Unless of course, it's all gimmick and the upper tiers are hardly pushed forward much from traditional layouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The_People1 said:

 

Then my next question is, does the Alberta building code allow stair construction with a rise larger than the run?  We're talking likely, greater than 45 Degree incline at the highest deck.  Unless of course, it's all gimmick and the upper tiers are hardly pushed forward much from traditional layouts.

Sure we'll find out lol

It's definitely not a done deal..  a friend of a friend's engineering company told her they are bidding on it so definitely no decision Ona. Design yet..  but cross is right , the flames are in the video so there had to have been some consulting already 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Sounds good in theory but the highest tier/deck will have to have a steep slope/angle if pushed forward in order to maintain a good line of sight of the arena below.  I wonder how this will work and if they've built these arenas already.

 

36xsi3.jpg

 

 

Their outline is different it doesn't stack, it overlaps

 

 

INVERTED-BOWL_Cost-Efficiencies©ROSSETTI.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe anyone has actually built the "inverted Bowl" as outlined here. In the past King has said Columbus' arena is one of their design inspirations and it has some of the concepts of the inverted bowl but not all.

 

columbus-blue-jackets.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't realize this until now but the renderings we have seen in the media are actually from Rossetti, the company who has patented this design.

 

They are probably one of many that have been consulted, but would appear there is at very least a proposal from them. King is quoted on their website.

 

https://www.rossetti.com/work/project/calgary-entertainment-district

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Didn't realize this until now but the renderings we have seen in the media are actually from Rossetti, the company who has patented this design.

 

They are probably one of many that have been consulted, but would appear there is at very least a proposal from them. King is quoted on their website.

 

https://www.rossetti.com/work/project/calgary-entertainment-district

Oh wow they are too.. that definitely gives it traction..

I recall when they were playing duelling offers with the city last time king did say they already have a look for the building in mind 

 

Probably have to open up all bids but that may suggest it's these guys to lose 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how many may have caught this ..

one of the parcels the flames get "first Dibs " on .. is the VicPark Bus Barns.. 500,000 square feet .. 11.5 Acres 

Plenty big enough to put a Football stadium on :) 

 

Enoch House is doable , but would be a lot tighter (less than 2 acres)

 

 

not surprised if this is the possible goal 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

Not sure how many may have caught this ..

one of the parcels the flames get "first Dibs " on .. is the VicPark Bus Barns.. 500,000 square feet .. 11.5 Acres 

Plenty big enough to put a Football stadium on :) 

 

Enoch House is doable , but would be a lot tighter (less than 2 acres)

 

 

not surprised if this is the possible goal 

 

This is what scares me about that part of the deal. city gives them first rights which limits bidding and thus lowers the market value to allow sometime to be built that will provide them minimal revenue moving forward. 

 

Would really increase the risk on this overall project and IMO ensure that the city would take big losses on the deal. That's really valuable land so if anything is going to go there it should be something that provides a substantial revenue source to the city. I don't know and likely understand he legal situation behind the first right of refusal, but I can't imagine the City would be keen on letting CESC build a stadium there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

This is what scares me about that part of the deal. city gives them first rights which limits bidding and thus lowers the market value to allow sometime to be built that will provide them minimal revenue moving forward. 

 

Would really increase the risk on this overall project and IMO ensure that the city would take big losses on the deal. That's really valuable land so if anything is going to go there it should be something that provides a substantial revenue source to the city. I don't know and likely understand he legal situation behind the first right of refusal, but I can't imagine the City would be keen on letting CESC build a stadium there. 

I was reading it gives them a price set at time of appraisal,   they can buy it for that price up to a determined date ..if a potential buyer comes along before that date , then the flames have to either buy it then, or let it go 

I guess at that time it would come down to zoning..  but if theres a hockey stadium already can't see a football one being out of zone 

Could actually boost the district in the non hockey months as well..  build it right and you get a soccer field too 

 

Would not surprise me at all if that is the plan..I mean in the big picture I was finding it hard to believe the football was totally forgotten 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

..I mean in the big picture I was finding it hard to believe the football was totally forgotten 

 

The CFL is dying.  The big markets are caring less and less.  Toronto and Montreal especially have NFL aspirations.  Why spend money on a new stadium to see the CFL fold in less than 10 years?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Sounds good in theory but the highest tier/deck will have to have a steep slope/angle if pushed forward in order to maintain a good line of sight of the arena below.  I wonder how this will work and if they've built these arenas already.

 

36xsi3.jpg

 

Wouldn't the people in the back of L5 only have a line of sight that follows the top profile of the seating area? Basically a 45 degree line of sight that doesnt let them even see the ice surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

Wouldn't the people in the back of L5 only have a line of sight that follows the top profile of the seating area? Basically a 45 degree line of sight that doesnt let them even see the ice surface.

 

Not sure if joking but that's exactly what I was trying to illustrate with my sketch.  My point is that this "inverted bowl" concept would be a total fail if those in the back rows of L5 cannot see the ice surface.  And i don't see how a line of sight can be achieved without an angle greater than 45 degrees which then makes the slope highly dangerous.

 

Unless of course, we're talking 1 row of seats per deck.  Then, you can stack as many rows as you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Not sure if joking but that's exactly what I was trying to illustrate with my sketch.  My point is that this "inverted bowl" concept would be a total fail if those in the back rows of L5 cannot see the ice surface.  And i don't see how a line of sight can be achieved without an angle greater than 45 degrees which then makes the slope highly dangerous.

 

Unless of course, we're talking 1 row of seats per deck.  Then, you can stack as many rows as you wish.

Not joking, just a little thick sometimes.  I'm not too sure if theres a legal limit but heres a pic of the Jets arena. The upper bowl looks to be a 45 degree angle, but ascending or descending the stairs to your seat can be a bit tricky even before the beer.  I wouldnt recommend anyone with fear of heights or vertigo go go up there.

mtsseats.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

Not joking, just a little thick sometimes.  I'm not too sure if theres a legal limit but heres a pic of the Jets arena. The upper bowl looks to be a 45 degree angle, but ascending or descending the stairs to your seat can be a bit tricky even before the beer.  I wouldnt recommend anyone with fear of heights or vertigo go go up there.

mtsseats.jpg

 

In Peeps pic, he shows a flat section behind the first few rows.  That doesn't make sense.  The rows would need to be slanted at the same angle.

The top row of the top section would be the same as the first row of that section.  

Pictures look cool, but you have to think about why you are building it.

Hockey and concerts.

You can't build a facility in this day and age that doesn't allow for ease of access.  Boomers are getting older.  At most, a patron should have top climb about 10 rows or go down the same number.  

 

Take the best ideas from modern facilities and build it right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to laugh.  

TSN has no coverage of the new agreement.

The last story about it was from the 29th talking about council to debate it.

Instead, they have two stories about McDavid and the Oilers.

TSN managed to report the signing of Gerard and the firing of Fenton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

Not joking, just a little thick sometimes.  I'm not too sure if theres a legal limit but heres a pic of the Jets arena. The upper bowl looks to be a 45 degree angle, but ascending or descending the stairs to your seat can be a bit tricky even before the beer.  I wouldnt recommend anyone with fear of heights or vertigo go go up there.

mtsseats.jpg

 

 

Kek, check out the slope on the highest deck in Rossetti's own video plug,

 

36ymsa.jpg

 

Looks like between 45 to 65 degrees.  As if those in the back row of the highest deck can see the near boards of the rink below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

In Peeps pic, he shows a flat section behind the first few rows.  That doesn't make sense.  The rows would need to be slanted at the same angle.

The top row of the top section would be the same as the first row of that section.  

Pictures look cool, but you have to think about why you are building it.

Hockey and concerts.

You can't build a facility in this day and age that doesn't allow for ease of access.  Boomers are getting older.  At most, a patron should have top climb about 10 rows or go down the same number.  

 

Take the best ideas from modern facilities and build it right.

 

 

 

The more i think about this inverted bowl concept, the more problems i see with it.

 

What if something falls from the highest deck onto the lower bowl below?  A 1 litre fountain pop dropped from that height could be considered a lethal projectile by the time it picks up speed and reaches an unlucky fan below.  What about dropping a cell phone from that height?  loose change?  Or worse, a person falls over the railings?  Have these hazards been considered?

 

"break up the upper deck and push them forward" is a great marketing scheme and sounds great until you wonder why nobody has ever built this before and if you've actually done some geometry and math to calculate the angle of seats required to be maintained so the upper decks can still view everything below.  "Patent pending" is more marketing gimmick.  Who would ever copy this design when there are so many apparent flaws with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

Not joking, just a little thick sometimes.  I'm not too sure if theres a legal limit but heres a pic of the Jets arena. The upper bowl looks to be a 45 degree angle, but ascending or descending the stairs to your seat can be a bit tricky even before the beer.  I wouldnt recommend anyone with fear of heights or vertigo go go up there.

mtsseats.jpg

Dude, nothing can be worse than the old Winnipeg Arena. Now that was a fricken scary arena. You could be on beer #7 and still get scared mierdeless. When I sat in one of the worst seats in the 'dome, they actually have staff approach you every now and then to ask how you are doing. Someone musta had a panic attack up there or something. They are the most loyal fans up there too. They cheer the Flames even though they can't really watch the game without a telescope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

The more i think about this inverted bowl concept, the more problems i see with it.

 

What if something falls from the highest deck onto the lower bowl below?  A 1 litre fountain pop dropped from that height could be considered a lethal projectile by the time it picks up speed and reaches an unlucky fan below.  What about dropping a cell phone from that height?  loose change?  Or worse, a person falls over the railings?  Have these hazards been considered?

 

"break up the upper deck and push them forward" is a great marketing scheme and sounds great until you wonder why nobody has ever built this before and if you've actually done some geometry and math to calculate the angle of seats required to be maintained so the upper decks can still view everything below.  "Patent pending" is more marketing gimmick.  Who would ever copy this design when there are so many apparent flaws with it?

not being an engineer .. i'll have to defer to the experts .. pretty sure Millions went into the design so most things like that are likely thought of 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

The more i think about this inverted bowl concept, the more problems i see with it.

 

What if something falls from the highest deck onto the lower bowl below?  A 1 litre fountain pop dropped from that height could be considered a lethal projectile by the time it picks up speed and reaches an unlucky fan below.  What about dropping a cell phone from that height?  loose change?  Or worse, a person falls over the railings?  Have these hazards been considered?

 

"break up the upper deck and push them forward" is a great marketing scheme and sounds great until you wonder why nobody has ever built this before and if you've actually done some geometry and math to calculate the angle of seats required to be maintained so the upper decks can still view everything below.  "Patent pending" is more marketing gimmick.  Who would ever copy this design when there are so many apparent flaws with it?

The funny thing is that it's not like this is some new company doing this, these guys have the 3 newest arenas in the league under their belt.  I've never been to any of them but I don't think theres anything inherently wrong with them, in fact I really like the idea of the players tunnel having glass walls going through a sports bar like they do in Detroit. You would think their engineers should have seen the same issues that some message board hacks have noticed. Maybe in a large football/ soccer/ motorsport stadium the "disconnected" idea of the cheap seats may be true but I dont think that applies to a hockey/basketball arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

not being an engineer .. i'll have to defer to the experts .. pretty sure Millions went into the design so most things like that are likely thought of 

I dunno man. I have never purchased a home where the lot was the correct size. Some areas of the city that are relatively high up experience frequent flooding. There are still lead pipes in the city, and when they put new asphalt on 16th ave, apparently they forgot about the rail lines underneath and had to do it again. What these problems have in common are "engineers" who were educated in the "Cs and Ds get degrees" era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...