Do you support the proposal for the new arena?

  • Yes

    Votes: 94 66.7%

  • No

    Votes: 38 27.0%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 9 6.4%
  • Total voters
    141
darwink said:
Wasn't the last iteration ~200 stalls?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think someone counted 190 in the last design. My guess is that the new layout will have more stalls because the parkade area seems larger. The Parkade previously took up ~1/2 of the N wall on a smaller site and now takes up ~3/4 of the S wall on a larger site (keeping in mind that in both layouts, the parkade is on one of the goal sides of the building (i.e, narrow side), not one of the sideboard side (i.e., long side)). I just guessed 300-500. I hope it's not still ~200 stalls, as that just further diminishes justification for a parkade vs. burried, because clearly then the parking is being built for players, staff, owners, etc., because 200 stalls is a drop in the bucket for 18,000+ spectators.
 
Tothewest said:
1. There was a ramp before, they just rotated that end 90*, the rink can still only be one story down, simply isn't the "runway" for a longer ramp at that end. Extra space on the sides doesnt help that problem. Promoter trucks cant turn inside, so its gotta be straight in straight out
3. if the saddledome has a convenient parkade for players/staff/premium, the new one will. you're not going to make the experience worse for the ones bankrolling a new facility. just move on, they do this everywhere
4. C trains are already packed, yet tons still drive because they have to, for many reasons. Building a new rink in the same location isnt going to make people change....they just wont go
5. how far do you expect kids to walk with equipment, if this area develops the way we hope it does? CSEC might use it for 6 hours in am/afternoon, when everyone else is at school/work
6. its actually the opposite. IF you bury a parkade (cant combine with event level, not enough room), event level moves to street level (edmonton), which means everyone has to be brought UP to the concourse. more stairs, escalators, ect....street retail disappears because you need space for storage/dressing rooms/loading. For anyone thats been to edmonton, the plaza across street is great...but Rogers itself is horrible for street presence. Entire south wall on 104th is the oilers locker room
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are deeper event levels on smaller footprints in the NHL. Edmonton had no choice but to build their parkade underground at the expense of the street level retail because there was no room for an above ground parkade and there was plans for retail at the ICE district anyway. Calgary's last plan didn't have the money for an underground parkade and the City wasn't going to compromise with the removal of street level retail on Stampede Trail so we got a parkade squeezed into the east side of the lot. Also the event level ramp isn't required to be adjacent to the parkade and they could have the ramp on 14 Ave (remember the empty square?) if needed.
 
Duck Lightning said:
I'm sure there are deeper event levels on smaller footprints in the NHL. Edmonton had no choice but to build their parkade underground at the expense of the street level retail because there was no room for an above ground parkade and there was plans for retail at the ICE district anyway. Calgary's last plan didn't have the money for an underground parkade and the City wasn't going to compromise with the removal of street level retail on Stampede Trail so we got a parkade squeezed into the east side of the lot. Also the event level ramp isn't required to be adjacent to the parkade and they could have the ramp on 14 Ave (remember the empty square?) if needed.
Click to expand...
the ramp (loading) has to be behind the zamboni (stage)end of the facility, ur talking about needing space for 6-8 loading bays, with no ability to turn, it literally can only be at the end or on a corner

The deeper you go, the farther out the ramp has to be. Seattles subteranean rink….the trucks enter it 2 blocks away under a park. Winnipeg…under a road and under a building behind it. Detroit, looking google eartg, is under a parkade then under a plaza, almost 1.5 blocks away. It can be done, but not on this footprint without going under a road
 
Lol, done with the ramp/parkade!!! Not looking to be a source of arguments, ive just seen enough of them in travels, and thus the space/location required for each.

The more important conversation is moving that concourse to the top of the lower bowl, with a mid-bowl club concourse. Those lower bowl stairs were gross
 
I wonder if the reason for that design last time around was to offer wheelchair seating in the lower bowl from the main concourse because normally mid lower bowl entrances don't have stairs like the ones in that last design. Instead of a top of the lower bowl main concourse we could have a large club area at the top of the lower bowl that encompasses the second floor of the retail in the north side that offers wheelchair seating at the top of the lower bowl.
 
Tothewest said:
Lol, done with the ramp/parkade!!! Not looking to be a source of arguments, ive just seen enough of them in travels, and thus the space/location required for each.

The more important conversation is moving that concourse to the top of the lower bowl, with a mid-bowl club concourse. Those lower bowl stairs were gross
Click to expand...
LOL. I don't think it was an argument, just debate.

My point was not there shouldn't be on-site parking, it was that we shouldn't kid ourselves about who that parking serves (owners/players/staff/premium ticket holders), and that this shouldn't come at the cost of better design.

We shouldn't have to have 1/4 of the facade covered by a parkade instead of the parking being buried, and ideally being incorporated into the "future redevelopment site" that the Flames have an option to purchase. The Flames' future redevelopment site will have it's own parking needs, so the Flames have a vested interest to overbuild the adjacent on-site parking now, while the City is footing most of the bill.

I prefer the on-site parking to be exclusive (owners/players/staff/premium ticket holders), and don't want to see it marginally expanded to include capacity for general spectators, because that means a larger parkade, for minimal return and a worse design. I think spectators should be encouraged to take alternative means of transportation, and if parking is going to deter them, they'll be replaced by spectators who are not deterred by walking, taking transit, or taking a cab/Uber.

If the parking is exclusive, who cares if it's not incorporated into the event level. I doubt the owners/players/staff/premium ticket holders would care, and I'd rather see outdoor plaza space (above buried parking) for general spectators.

I don't think the loading and parking ramps need to be co-located with the larger site. The design should be different.

I also don't think the community rink should be located at the site. I think the location will diminish the public use, and disproportionately benefits CSEC. Lots of NHL teams don't have co-located practice/training facilities. Even if the area develops the way we all hope it will, it's not currently conveniently located, and parking at the grounds are a cash grab.

I don't think the parkade will be servicing community rink users, because the cost to park will be too high (particularly compared to community rinks that have free parking), and on days/nights with events, those parking spots will be prohibitively expensive and taken by owners/players/staff/premium ticket holders.

Anyways, enough about parking, do we think anyone will get a statue on the grounds?
 
Doesn't the Stampede Grounds offer enough parking for the arena? That area is huge and never will overlap with any of the hockey teams. Even then, most people take the train to the arena as of now anyway. I don't see the point of adding a parkade when we have a bunch of parking on the grounds that will literally never be able to be developped because of the Stampede. It is like what? 1 km from where the new arena is supposed to be? Even if people parked there, encouraging them to walk to the arena where im sure restaurants and stores will be added around the area will help them make the immediate are more vibrant
 
adamyyc said:
Yeah, I think someone counted 190 in the last design. My guess is that the new layout will have more stalls because the parkade area seems larger. The Parkade previously took up ~1/2 of the N wall on a smaller site and now takes up ~3/4 of the S wall on a larger site (keeping in mind that in both layouts, the parkade is on one of the goal sides of the building (i.e, narrow side), not one of the sideboard side (i.e., long side)). I just guessed 300-500. I hope it's not still ~200 stalls, as that just further diminishes justification for a parkade vs. burried, because clearly then the parking is being built for players, staff, owners, etc., because 200 stalls is a drop in the bucket for 18,000+ spectators.
Click to expand...
I think I might have been the one who counted the 190. It's important to note that the parkade in the old designs was separate from ~40 event-level stalls accessed from the loading ramp next to the home dressing room, presumably intended for Flames players and coaches. I'm about as anti-car as it gets, but even I won't argue that the players don't need those stalls, as high-profile public figures who I'm sure want some privacy when showing up to work. Those are as much operational space as the parking for 3 broadcast trucks and 5 tractor-trailers/coaches was. In any case, the parkade parking was clearly reserved for the use of luxury suite owners, rather than the 18,000 general public; nobody seems much concerned about in-building parking for them, since there is a ton of parking in the area and high-quality public transit.
 
ByeByeBaby said:
I think I might have been the one who counted the 190. It's important to note that the parkade in the old designs was separate from ~40 event-level stalls accessed from the loading ramp next to the home dressing room, presumably intended for Flames players and coaches. I'm about as anti-car as it gets, but even I won't argue that the players don't need those stalls, as high-profile public figures who I'm sure want some privacy when showing up to work. Those are as much operational space as the parking for 3 broadcast trucks and 5 tractor-trailers/coaches was. In any case, the parkade parking was clearly reserved for the use of luxury suite owners, rather than the 18,000 general public; nobody seems much concerned about in-building parking for them, since there is a ton of parking in the area and high-quality public transit.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize there was 30 stalls off the loading dock ramp. I don’t think it changes the argument that this area can exist separate from on-site general parking, and general parking can be buried more than one level, or not exist at all.
 
Duck Lightning said:
I wonder if the reason for that design last time around was to offer wheelchair seating in the lower bowl from the main concourse because normally mid lower bowl entrances don't have stairs like the ones in that last design. Instead of a top of the lower bowl main concourse we could have a large club area at the top of the lower bowl that encompasses the second floor of the retail in the north side that offers wheelchair seating at the top of the lower bowl.
Click to expand...
I think the reason was the tight footprint on the north and south sides (rink ends), the lower bowl had to be stacked somewhat or the club/suite would've been too cantilevered over it. plus an additional concourse costs $$. Upon closer review of the plans (thanks @Chinese_T ) , the event level was plenty big enough, things fell apart trying to squeeze the CSEC office/retail/parkade along 4th and 14th. Those will no longer have an impact with the new orientation, we will see something much different IMO

konradiical said:
Doesn't the Stampede Grounds offer enough parking for the arena? That area is huge and never will overlap with any of the hockey teams. Even then, most people take the train to the arena as of now anyway. I don't see the point of adding a parkade when we have a bunch of parking on the grounds that will literally never be able to be developped because of the Stampede. It is like what? 1 km from where the new arena is supposed to be? Even if people parked there, encouraging them to walk to the arena where im sure restaurants and stores will be added around the area will help them make the immediate are more vibrant
Click to expand...
The stampede grounds is a busy spot, made even busier with the BMO expansion. I dont believe it has a parkade under the new build?? With any kind of development in that area, parking WILL disappear
ByeByeBaby said:
the parkade parking was clearly reserved for the use of luxury suite owners, rather than the 18,000 general public; nobody seems much concerned about in-building parking for them, since there is a ton of parking in the area and high-quality public transit.
Click to expand...
bingo. like it or not, when your new suite runs you probably $500k, you're gonna get at minimum the same parking perk u had before
 
Last edited:
konradiical said:
Doesn't the Stampede Grounds offer enough parking for the arena? That area is huge and never will overlap with any of the hockey teams. Even then, most people take the train to the arena as of now anyway. I don't see the point of adding a parkade when we have a bunch of parking on the grounds that will literally never be able to be developped because of the Stampede. It is like what? 1 km from where the new arena is supposed to be? Even if people parked there, encouraging them to walk to the arena where im sure restaurants and stores will be added around the area will help them make the immediate are more vibrant
Click to expand...
If any of the parkade parking is available for patrons, revenue will go to CSEC not Stampede. They'd also be able to charge more than surface parking. We're still not sure though how much will be for players/management/CSEC/EC Staff and how much will be open to patrons. Might it be 100% - 0%, might it be 50-50. Time will tell.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top