The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Fun exercise, how many players currently on the Flames, will be on the team when the arena opens?

 

24/25, 25/26, 26/27. A minimum of three full seasons away still.

 

Huberdeau, Weegar, Kadri, Sharangovich, Zary, Wolf, Coronato, maybe Pelletier.

 

Contracts expire for Backlund, Coleman, Andersson in that time. Someone like Pospisil could very well still be on the team. He’s just someone I think will end up highly coveted at a TDL in a few seasons.

 

Felt bad for Huska being at the ceremony yesterday, for a building he’s unlikely to be the coach of the Flames for, when it opens. I like. Huska, but the Flames haven’t had a coach survive 5 seasons in a very long time.

 

"Minimum of three full seasons" and that's probably best case scenario.  Feels like these mega projects always have set backs and the original construction schedule was too optimistic.  So possibly no new arena until 28/29 or even 29/30.

[Thebrewcrew]

7 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

"Minimum of three full seasons" and that's probably best case scenario.  Feels like these mega projects always have set backs and the original construction schedule was too optimistic.  So possibly no new arena until 28/29 or even 29/30.

A lot of it will depend on the weather too. A more mild  fall/ winter and they can probably work into late November. Once they have the foundation and structure, they can get to a point where they can work year round. Probably late 2025 that happens. 

[sak22]

22 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

"Minimum of three full seasons" and that's probably best case scenario.  Feels like these mega projects always have set backs and the original construction schedule was too optimistic.  So possibly no new arena until 28/29 or even 29/30.

I think 3 is playing it safe.  UBS took just over 2 years from groundbreaking to completion and that included a 2 month pause during covid.  Little C's was 3 years, Rogers started March 2014 and opened September 2016, Vegas and Pittsburgh were both 2 years.  New NBA stadiums Intuit in LA is looking at 3 years and that is a much larger project, San Francisco and Milwaukee both under 3 years.  I don't think there should be issues with hitting the 3 year target.

[travel_dude]

7 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

What is the community rink?  Like, another rink inside the whole arena complex?

 

I saw a story that shows a 2 story outdoor bar in one corner.

The community rink is under the main one.

Weird.

[conundrumed]

On 7/23/2024 at 7:06 PM, travel_dude said:

 

I saw a story that shows a 2 story outdoor bar in one corner.

The community rink is under the main one.

Weird.

That's not unusual at all. The worst part of going downstairs to play is walking upstairs with your gear after playing. Especially for goalies.

Mercifully, they don't make old leather and horse hair pads anymore, or goalies would be laughing at even the strongest skater's matchstick legs. lol

[medatswhoP]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/city-calgary-noise-bylaw-scotia-place-1.7274427

I'm sure the "Karens" living near the new building will have some great comments.

[Mike_Oxlong]

On 7/22/2024 at 2:15 PM, conundrumed said:

The Cauldron. Damn. I wish that was my idea. lol

I'm actually partial to "The Firepit."

 

Anyways, I love this rendering. Gonna be a great backbone to the Rivers district and looking forward to more entertainers being able to play here. As cool as the Saddledome was, dat roof didn't make it easy for bands to come and rock the Dome.

[conundrumed]

2 hours ago, Mike_Oxlong said:

I'm actually partial to "The Firepit."

 

Anyways, I love this rendering. Gonna be a great backbone to the Rivers district and looking forward to more entertainers being able to play here. As cool as the Saddledome was, dat roof didn't make it easy for bands to come and rock the Dome.

I don't mind the Fire Pit. The Fire Place, on the other hand, I don't like at all. That's where we go to rest and warm up. A place to mellow out.

I agree, looks amazing. Hopefully that's very close to the final engineering.

Though I understand council is now trying to address noise restriction by-laws. Hopefully that works out.

edit

Hope your summer's going great, outside of the constant horrible news with the water mains, now Jasper.😭

[Mike_Oxlong]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I don't mind the Fire Pit. The Fire Place, on the other hand, I don't like at all. That's where we go to rest and warm up. A place to mellow out.

I agree, looks amazing. Hopefully that's very close to the final engineering.

Though I understand council is now trying to address noise restriction by-laws. Hopefully that works out.

edit

Hope your summer's going great, outside of the constant horrible news with the water mains, now Jasper.😭

Yeah, more bad Satoshi Nakamoto incoming. It's been an interesting summer, to say the least. 

Edit - "Satoshi Nakamoto" is Japanese for a 4-letter word equivalent to a deuce.

[Thebrewcrew]

I think the new arena is gonna be called "the Dome" even if it isn't a dome. It's just such an iconic name. Idk

[robrob74]

The Gaslight Arena. 
 

they should get a natural gas company to sponsor it. 

[phoenix66]

7 hours ago, conundrumed said:

 

Though I understand council is now trying to address noise restriction by-laws. Hopefully that works out.😭

It better..it would be such a typical Calgary City Council blunder to ruin a good thing by being handcuffed by a bylaw thst keeps them from having the concerts and events in the new building 

Pretty  sure I read they'll vote next week to push it thru.. if not there is your first cost oversight on having to pay more for extra sound proofing 

[420since1974]

The current city bylaw is no noise higher than 50 decibels after 10 pm and they want to change it to 64 decibels until midnight.

Heck, a normal conversation measured right beside the people speaking is 60 - 70 decibels.

At the source, a rock concert is between 90 and 120 decibels.

Does anyone know of an equation or a chart that shows how far away you need to be from a 120 db source for it to drop to 64 db?

That would at least give us some idea on how many people might potentially be bothered by it.

 

If they do not change the bylaw, the cost of soundproofing ($8M) would be a cost overrun of 0.86% of the entire project.

[conundrumed]

8 hours ago, 420since1974 said:

anyone know of an equation or a chart that shows how far away you need to be from a 120 db source for it to drop to 64 db?

You should ask an ultrasonics guy. lol

About 500m-ish. So from the point of where you measure 120dB:

Inverse Square Law for sound attenuation.

The trigger is a 6dB drop. So if it takes 1m to drop 6dB from the measurement point, you double the distance for your next 6db drop.

So 1m from source, then 2m, then 4m, then 8m, then 16m, then 32m etc for each 6dB drop in sound pressure.

edit

Sorry, I should have said that's an example of how the sound attenuation vs distance works.

Also, in, general, you're around 1.5m to go from 120 to 114dB.

Also in general, for something like this, you'd apply a safety factor. I applied a 1m factor from the 120dB source. And come out around 500m.

So I've built in some conservatism.

I'd spend the money on modifications to absorb the sound, then it's no longer a concern.

Because it's not my money. lol

 

[Mike_Oxlong]

5 hours ago, conundrumed said:

You should ask an ultrasonics guy. lol

About 500m-ish. So from the point of where you measure 120dB:

Inverse Square Law for sound attenuation.

The trigger is a 6dB drop. So if it takes 1m to drop 6dB from the measurement point, you double the distance for your next 6db drop.

So 1m from source, then 2m, then 4m, then 8m, then 16m, then 32m etc for each 6dB drop in sound pressure.

So 512m away from a jet engine is 64dB. Interesting. I'm comparing to the decibel level chart here...
https://decibelpro.app/blog/decibel-chart-of-common-sound-sources/

[travel_dude]

19 hours ago, Mike_Oxlong said:

Yeah, more bad Satoshi Nakamoto incoming. It's been an interesting summer, to say the least. 

Edit - "Satoshi Nakamoto" is Japanese for a 4-letter word equivalent to a deuce.

That the swear filter replacement word.  There's a list.  

[travel_dude]

5 hours ago, conundrumed said:

You should ask an ultrasonics guy. lol

About 500m-ish. So from the point of where you measure 120dB:

Inverse Square Law for sound attenuation.

The trigger is a 6dB drop. So if it takes 1m to drop 6dB from the measurement point, you double the distance for your next 6db drop.

So 1m from source, then 2m, then 4m, then 8m, then 16m, then 32m etc for each 6dB drop in sound pressure.

 

"I was told there would not be any math!".

[Mike_Oxlong]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

"I was told there would not be any math!".

Lies! ALL LIES!!!!!!

[conundrumed]

31 minutes ago, Mike_Oxlong said:

So 512m away from a jet engine is 64dB. Interesting. I'm comparing to the decibel level chart here...
https://decibelpro.app/blog/decibel-chart-of-common-sound-sources/

I'm a bit surprised they're using 10dB changes.

6dB is the basis of the physics. It represents a 50% drop/increase. Hence, double the distance for each 6dB drop.

OMG. I can't believe that I almost sound smart. lol

 

[Mike_Oxlong]

52 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I'm a bit surprised they're using 10dB changes.

6dB is the basis of the physics. It represents a 50% drop/increase. Hence, double the distance for each 6dB drop.

OMG. I can't believe that I almost sound smart. lol

 

Me either.

[The_People1]

11 hours ago, 420since1974 said:

The current city bylaw is no noise higher than 50 decibels after 10 pm and they want to change it to 64 decibels until midnight.

Heck, a normal conversation measured right beside the people speaking is 60 - 70 decibels.

At the source, a rock concert is between 90 and 120 decibels.

Does anyone know of an equation or a chart that shows how far away you need to be from a 120 db source for it to drop to 64 db?

That would at least give us some idea on how many people might potentially be bothered by it.

 

If they do not change the bylaw, the cost of soundproofing ($8M) would be a cost overrun of 0.86% of the entire project.

 

Why don't they just blanket rezone that area from High Density Residential into an Industrial Park?  I mean, on paper anyways.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, Mike_Oxlong said:

Me either.

Hey!! I resemble that remark!😠

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Why don't they just blanket rezone that area from High Density Residential into an Industrial Park?  I mean, on paper anyways.

I think they'd be best to take the time and add sound dampening into the structure. It wouldn't affect the sound, just absorb it. It's a longterm structure, so get it right. If it tacks another 5% onto the price...you're this far in now, make sure you get it right.

On a much smaller scale, a friend of mine went through this. He got a waiver for 6 times/year, reduced to 3, reduced to zero over time. It really, reeaally sucked for him to constantly fight what ultimately becomes a losing battle. He spent a small fortune on a sound engineer designing a fix.

CSEC should just get ahead of it.

If residents start complaining, you're going to lose, every time.

Just design the sound dampening now. Because 10 times/yr will eventually become zero times/yr when communities band together.

Get ahead of it.

edit

Then, you don't need a waiver for 8-10 times/yr. You're good for 365 days/yr. You don't need by-law changes and endless fights.

It's well worth doing it now.

You're spending that much, many aren't happy. Make it state-of-the-art on noise control, because like it or not, people will be ready to BTC. Even at 6 times/yr. They'll find reasons.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Why don't they just blanket rezone that area from High Density Residential into an Industrial Park?  I mean, on paper anyways.

i live downtown Vancouver, Yaletown. We hear the concerts at bc place all the time and we are about 7 blocks away. It's more of a hum and cheer kind of sound. It's not that bad at all. 
 

i get that maybe ones that have bought in the area before a stadium gets built would have issues with it, but if there are new builds then they buy knowing it's there. And really, how much sound goes through the building? I don't hear Rogers concerts out side the Canucks arena. They've gotta have budgeted for at least some soundproofing, no? 

[robrob74]

17 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I think they'd be best to take the time and add sound dampening into the structure. It wouldn't affect the sound, just absorb it. It's a longterm structure, so get it right. If it tacks another 5% onto the price...you're this far in now, make sure you get it right.

On a much smaller scale, a friend of mine went through this. He got a waiver for 6 times/year, reduced to 3, reduced to zero over time. It really, reeaally sucked for him to constantly fight what ultimately becomes a losing battle. He spent a small fortune on a sound engineer designing a fix.

CSEC should just get ahead of it.

If residents start complaining, you're going to lose, every time.

Just design the sound dampening now. Because 10 times/yr will eventually become zero times/yr when communities band together.

Get ahead of it.

edit

Then, you don't need a waiver for 8-10 times/yr. You're good for 365 days/yr. You don't need by-law changes and endless fights.

It's well worth doing it now.

You're spending that much, many aren't happy. Make it state-of-the-art on noise control, because like it or not, people will be ready to BTC. Even at 6 times/yr. They'll find reasons.

it should have been in the original proposal. If you want to have world class artist play there and have events when games aren't being played, then best to have it ready to do that?