The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[travel_dude]

14 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I just don't see why they can't have both, does seem short-sited.   Cutting costs in strange places.   I do understand why the box seats are important but it's almost like they're designing it with the intention of having a mediocre team with semi-interested fans.

 

A bigger question would be if the arena is capable of Olympic sized ice, or at least larger ice than what the NHL has now.

 

I just can't imagine building an arena today without considering that the NHL may change its rink size in the next few decades.    But maybe that's all worked out, I'm not up to speed on it.

 

So is this thing actually going ahead for realz for realz?  Or is there another exit point?

 

Still like the dome 🙂

 

Rink size?

Some things never change.

100 (?) years and going strong.

 

So, when they played Olympic hockey in CGY and VAN, did they use NA or International size.  Quite frankly I forget.

[sak22]

13 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm glad that the guys who did the Detroit arena are the ones.  I'm not as impressed with Rogers Place's design, but I think that was dictated by the owner to look a certain way.  From what I understand Rogers Place has some issues with the design that make it less desirable as well.  But that's 2nd hand info, so I can't be certain.

When I went to Rogers I enjoyed everything until you get to the arena portion, I sat upper level which meant a crazy long escalator and a 2nd level concourse which lacked amenities, lineups were just as bad as the Dome for us.  Seats were comfortable for the 2nd level but no cup holders.  Took forever to get out of there after the game as well which isn't fun when your wearing a Flames jersey and the Oilers win.  Not the best arena I've been but would still be open to going back, my preference would be to try out the lower bowl to fully judge it, as someone who has ST's on the cheaper side for the Flames I will likely be in the higher sections of the new building and would be extremely disappointed to have the issues that Rogers has with its higher level.

[cross16]

The idea of moving to international ice has died in recent years. I think there is so much feedback that comes from watching the NHLers play on it now (that isn't positive) that there is enough evidence to show it's not a good idea. The quality of the game gets worse IMO, not better.  I have not heard that come up in years and the NHL seems pretty happy with the state of their game. 

 

7 minutes ago, sak22 said:

When I went to Rogers I enjoyed everything until you get to the arena portion, I sat upper level which meant a crazy long escalator and a 2nd level concourse which lacked amenities, lineups were just as bad as the Dome for us.  Seats were comfortable for the 2nd level but no cup holders.  Took forever to get out of there after the game as well which isn't fun when your wearing a Flames jersey and the Oilers win.  Not the best arena I've been but would still be open to going back, my preference would be to try out the lower bowl to fully judge it, as someone who has ST's on the cheaper side for the Flames I will likely be in the higher sections of the new building and would be extremely disappointed to have the issues that Rogers has with its higher level.

 

On some of the calls i've been on, the Flames have been very clear to mention they know there was some feedback that came out of Rogers arena that they have heard and want to correct. It's something they've learned from and not necessarily one they wish to emulate 100%. 

[travel_dude]

As much as the Saddledome was iconic, I don't think iconic belongs anymore in design of building.

I think that Rogers Place is an eyesore, but that just my tastes.

It resembles a drop of mercury more than oil, but what do I know.

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Rink size?

Some things never change.

100 (?) years and going strong.

 

So, when they played Olympic hockey in CGY and VAN, did they use NA or International size.  Quite frankly I forget.

 

I hope we don't go with bigger rink size.

 

Theoretically, more room means more speed which means more offense and more goals.

 

In practice, less room means more contact which means more turnovers which means more oddman rushes and more goals.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

The idea of moving to international ice has died in recent years. I think there is so much feedback that comes from watching the NHLers play on it now (that isn't positive) that there is enough evidence to show it's not a good idea. The quality of the game gets worse IMO, not better.  I have not heard that come up in years and the NHL seems pretty happy with the state of their game. 

 

I must concede this is true within North America.    However, I might suggest larger rinks are alive and well in the rest of the world, have larger crowds, more playmaking, and less injuries.  I feel we are a long way from having settled the matter anymore than the advantages of large ice have become dead issues.   The arena being built (if it is built) should not be built for the Bettman era imho.

 

All it takes is one CFO with enough brains to realize bigger ice means more seats, means more press boxes, means more profitable amenities, and more healthy playing time from the fan favourites.   I can see the potential for a rapid shift.

 

But sure, I could be wrong.  With regards to the Saddledome during the Olympics, I must admit I don't remember how this was handled but I always felt it was modded?

[jjgallow]

6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I hope we don't go with bigger rink size.

 

Theoretically, more room means more speed which means more offense and more goals.

 

In practice, less room means more contact which means more turnovers which means more oddman rushes and more goals.

 

True.  Completely true.   But, goals could be fixed by increasing the net size, which would also level the playing field for goaltenders (currently they just stuff the little nets with giants who have large equipment).

 

There would still be less turnovers but imho we could live without the turnovers if we had great playmaking, speed, more skills, and goals (bigger nets)

[robrob74]

14 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

True.  Completely true.   But, goals could be fixed by increasing the net size, which would also level the playing field for goaltenders (currently they just stuff the little nets with giants who have large equipment).

 

There would still be less turnovers but imho we could live without the turnovers if we had great playmaking, speed, more skills, and goals (bigger nets)

 

 

There was a time when Allen Bester was my favourite goaltender! 😂 Mike Palmateer. Times have changed!

[cross16]

30 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I hope we don't go with bigger rink size.

 

Theoretically, more room means more speed which means more offense and more goals.

 

In practice, less room means more contact which means more turnovers which means more oddman rushes and more goals.

 

On top of that the bigger ice actually encourages trapping and a slower game because you just need to keep them to the outside. I barely even watch the Olympics when they are on international ice because I find the quality of the game terrible. 

 

Interestingly enough if anyone is going to switch it seems more likely it would be the IIHF, not the NHL. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/international-hockey-competitions-may-move-nhl-sized-ice/

 

[Horsman1]

excessive speed as demanded by today's game has taken away much of the team play. There is only a small percentage of people on the planet that can react as fast as needed to play this game.. most every team has only 4 players that can think and react to play at this level so they are the players that are considered elite.. Reminds me of years ago when we had a certain player named kevin Lavalee.. could skate like the wind but his brain couldn't keep up with his legs.. 

[jjgallow]

On 6/24/2020 at 1:03 PM, cross16 said:

 

On top of that the bigger ice actually encourages trapping and a slower game because you just need to keep them to the outside. I barely even watch the Olympics when they are on international ice because I find the quality of the game terrible. 

 

Interestingly enough if anyone is going to switch it seems more likely it would be the IIHF, not the NHL. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/international-hockey-competitions-may-move-nhl-sized-ice/

 

 

Well this I did not know.   Myself, and ConnorFutureGM strongly disagree

[The_People1]

On 6/24/2020 at 1:03 PM, cross16 said:

 

On top of that the bigger ice actually encourages trapping and a slower game because you just need to keep them to the outside. I barely even watch the Olympics when they are on international ice because I find the quality of the game terrible. 

 

Interestingly enough if anyone is going to switch it seems more likely it would be the IIHF, not the NHL. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/international-hockey-competitions-may-move-nhl-sized-ice/

 

 

Worse than trap.  Teams line up 4 on their own blueline when defending a lead... Sometimes as soon as they score in the first period.

 

Gretzky always criticized the NHL for making more space behind the net.  Some NHL brains thought more room behind the net means more room for the new Gretzky's to operate.  No.  Gretzky argued it took an extra step to wrap around and made it harder to score.  Pucks also bounced off the back boards to the front of the net quicker when the net is closer to the back boards.

 

In short, smaller ice surface may mean slower speed but puts players closer together to create more action.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Well this I did not know.   Myself, and ConnorFutureGM strongly disagree

 

Haha, I miss that tool.

 

59 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Worse than trap.  Teams line up 4 on their own blueline when defending a lead... Sometimes as soon as they score in the first period.

 

Gretzky always criticized the NHL for making more space behind the net.  Some NHL brains thought more room behind the net means more room for the new Gretzky's to operate.  No.  Gretzky argued it took an extra step to wrap around and made it harder to score.  Pucks also bounced off the back boards to the front of the net quicker when the net is closer to the back boards.

 

In short, smaller ice surface may mean slower speed but puts players closer together to create more action.

 

I think there is enough speed in the NHL today.

[DirtyDeeds]

 

A few answers in this promo video.

 

To be started next summer.

To be completed May 2024

Same designers as Oilers/Red Wings and many other recent stadiums/arenas.

[Thebrewcrew]

 

 

This tour is worth the 8 minute watch. They really did it right in Detroit. I love the indoor street idea. 

[cross16]

They did do a great job, it's a beautiful building. I like how open the main concourse is and how they incorporated the history all throughout the building. That's one of the biggest things I hope they do with the new buildings is doing a better job of celebrating Calgary's sporting past. Would be great to have some kind of Hall of Fame in there as well rather than the Forever a Flame program. 

 

As fantastic a building as that is I think the Flames will get a very scaled down version of it. The cost of that area almost doubled from original estimates and I don't think you will get support for that here. I think some of the extra amenities, like the restaurants for example, they won't build into the new building and instead will allow them to pop up around the area, which i'm actually ok with. 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

Is there any plan for hotel/convention centre amenities incorporated to the project?  True North is finally finishing up the hotel/condo setup by the arena here and the outdoor plaza/viewing gallery was also built mostly to prevent celebratory crowds from taking over Portage and Main. You could access a couple hotels before but they were a bit of a trek away from the arena. 

[The_People1]

17 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

Is there any plan for hotel/convention centre amenities incorporated to the project?  True North is finally finishing up the hotel/condo setup by the arena here and the outdoor plaza/viewing gallery was also built mostly to prevent celebratory crowds from taking over Portage and Main. You could access a couple hotels before but they were a bit of a trek away from the arena. 

 

No public money for a hotel and convention centre unfortunately.  This is going to be as bare bone as it can get. 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

On 6/30/2020 at 8:10 AM, Thebrewcrew said:

 

 

This tour is worth the 8 minute watch. They really did it right in Detroit. I love the indoor street idea. 

Instead of the Kid Rock restaurant the Flames one will have George Canyons Country Karaoke Emporium.

[Horsman1]

if george canyon has anything to do with this building... i';ll become an oiler fan

[cross16]

21 hours ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

Is there any plan for hotel/convention centre amenities incorporated to the project?  True North is finally finishing up the hotel/condo setup by the arena here and the outdoor plaza/viewing gallery was also built mostly to prevent celebratory crowds from taking over Portage and Main. You could access a couple hotels before but they were a bit of a trek away from the arena. 

 

Not directly no but they are already there. BMO Centre is right across the street and is about to undergo a 500 million expansion and there are about a half dozen hotels within a 15 min walk or 3 minute cab ride in the area. 

 

Long term they want to see more but the plan is to let the arena be a catalyst as opposed to build it all as part of the same project, but there is already a lot of infrastructure in the area. 

[Horsman1]

On 7/2/2020 at 9:49 AM, cross16 said:

 

Not directly no but they are already there. BMO Centre is right across the street and is about to undergo a 500 million expansion and there are about a half dozen hotels within a 15 min walk or 3 minute cab ride in the area. 

 

Long term they want to see more but the plan is to let the arena be a catalyst as opposed to build it all as part of the same project, but there is already a lot of infrastructure in the area. 

 

On 7/2/2020 at 9:49 AM, cross16 said:

 

Not directly no but they are already there. BMO Centre is right across the street and is about to undergo a 500 million expansion and there are about a half dozen hotels within a 15 min walk or 3 minute cab ride in the area. 

 

Long term they want to see more but the plan is to let the arena be a catalyst as opposed to build it all as part of the same project, but there is already a lot of infrastructure in the area. 

Downtown Calgary is not a fan friendly area.. And the Stampede grounds, where the Saddle dome is and where the new arena is to be built... is just outside the downtown core and you have to get through the worst of the city to get to anything downtown..Nobody really goes downtown here unless you live downtown.. It's a ghost town after 6 at night and only see the homeless and challenged people out on the streets..They didn't rename a popular convenience store.. Crack Macs for nothing.. I used to live downtown as well as worked there for 14 years and it wasn't a friendly place to be.. I was hoping they'd move the entire Stampede grounds to Balzac .. just north of the city and sell the grounds to Amazon for their western headquarters.. Our mayor has this silly dream of turning Calgary into little Dubai and is building all the glass towers next to the river that runs through downtown and floods every year

[cross16]

A couple updates from Bean yesterday:

 

internal design to mimic Little Caesar’s. Specifically in terms of the lower bowl size and sloping of the upper levels. Expects fans in the upper levels will feel closer then in the Dome. 
 

Discussions are ongoing to have a hotel either attached or sharing land close to the new building. Sounds like this will happen it’s just a matter of time. 
 

Still feels good about their timeline and having everything done by Spring/Summer 2024. 

[sak22]

With the new coming along, the original is about to leave forever.

 

 

 

I never saw the Flames play there, I was only 2 when the Dome opened, but still a part of the teams history and the cities.  It will definitely be different not seeing it anymore.

[cross16]

I knew it was coming but it is sad. I too never watched hockey, played a few games though, in there but been there for concerts, shows or presentation and always thought it was a really cool building especially because they did a great job celebrating the history of the building and the city. Was always a cool experience to be there and especially to play games. 
 

I will miss it.