The design can probably be a bit less generic, but I think some of that will change as they progress. While PDX is great, there's a reason why not many airports are built like that. First is cost, timber is just more expensive than steel and concrete. This facility is also owned by the city, they have a tenant that agrees to pay a set amount per year. The city wants as little risk to the facility as possible. The Saddledome was innovative for its time, but its roof is now the main reason we couldn't renovate and need to build a new building. We may still want to replace it anyways but the roof made it urgent. Montreal's Olympic Stadium was again innovative for its time and is now going to cost almost $900M to replace the roof or $2B to demolish.

It's hard to forecast what's going to happen to arenas in the next 35 years, but chances are if the facility is similar to most in North America, demands from users are going to evolve with what's possible in most facilities.
 
Bottom line is it's no more or less nice than other recent arenas....it has a very Alberta motif. Wood, fire, ice...they've been pretty consistent with that. If one hates that all arenas look sterile, then there is no pleasing you. And that's fine, I personally never expected it to be an signature piece of architecture. Some big pieces why this one likely costs more, and maybe doesn't have the budget for a significant "wow" factor....
- street facing retail...which closes in the concourse, also limits expansive glass walls
- below grade ice rink...digging is expensive
- 6 programmable levels (event, club/kitchen, main, premium, upper, press)....that simply costs more than 12-15+ years ago when it was 4 or less
- community ice rink

So those all eat into the cost, which can limit some nice to have's....but bring huge benefit to the arena and the streetscape
 
Tothewest said:
Bottom line is it's no more or less nice than other recent arenas....it has a very Alberta motif. Wood, fire, ice...they've been pretty consistent with that. If one hates that all arenas look sterile, then there is no pleasing you. And that's fine, I personally never expected it to be an signature piece of architecture. Some big pieces why this one likely costs more, and maybe doesn't have the budget for a significant "wow" factor....
- street facing retail...which closes in the concourse, also limits expansive glass walls
- below grade ice rink...digging is expensive
- 6 programmable levels (event, club/kitchen, main, premium, upper, press)....that simply costs more than 12-15+ years ago when it was 4 or less
- community ice rink

So those all eat into the cost, which can limit some nice to have's....but bring huge benefit to the arena and the streetscape
Click to expand...
My biggest gripe is when shitty designs are justified due to 'budgetary constraints' when something far more elegant or interesting wouldn't cost more. If anything the 00's movie theatre looking drop panel ceiling 'clouds' cost more than a simple flat ceiling. As I had also mentioned, they could re-use the giant goalie mask from the exterior of the Saddledome. Choices were made and this looks like the lobby of a convention centre or office building. Empty and soulless and borderline liminal space. It also reminds me a bit of hotel convention centres.
 
O-tac said:
My biggest gripe is when shitty designs are justified due to 'budgetary constraints' when something far more elegant or interesting wouldn't cost more. If anything the 00's movie theatre looking drop panel ceiling 'clouds' cost more than a simple flat ceiling. As I had also mentioned, they could re-use the giant goalie mask from the exterior of the Saddledome. Choices were made and this looks like the lobby of a convention centre or office building. Empty and soulless and borderline liminal space. It also reminds me a bit of hotel convention centres.
Click to expand...
It is most certainly cost related. This is the render of the space in the public design brief. This wavy flowy roof was considered and then removed in favour of the clouds. Probably also a maintenance thing as these would be a nightmare to clean.

And why do people build convention centres, office building, hotels in this way? Because those spaces have to accommodate large numbers of people that have different aesthetic preferences. While this is primarily a hockey arena, but also hosts concerts and other events.

1776449566467.png

www.calgary.ca

Scotia Place - Frequently asked questions

Find answers to frequently asked questions about the design and construction of Scotia Place.
www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca
 
trtcttc said:
It is most certainly cost related. This is the render of the space in the public design brief. This wavy flowy roof was considered and then removed in favour of the clouds. Probably also a maintenance thing as these would be a nightmare to clean.

And why do people build convention centres, office building, hotels in this way? Because those spaces have to accommodate large numbers of people that have different aesthetic preferences. While this is primarily a hockey arena, but also hosts concerts and other events.

View attachment 729947
www.calgary.ca

Scotia Place - Frequently asked questions

Find answers to frequently asked questions about the design and construction of Scotia Place.
www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca
Click to expand...
Bingo. Arena foyer's aren't supposed to be intimate spaces, they are large/open by design and code. The current design is a significant improvement from your image, what with the bar, backlit wood beams, larger LED screen. If they had drywalled the ceiling with pot lights, that would have been panned for being too sterile. I personally dont mind the dropped ceiling, seemingly a cloud shape. The staggered/random mini pots under the black roof creates a cool sky/stars effect.

For what it's worth the website has had a facelift....including more detail on the restaurants and experience centre. One is a steakhouse, one a cocktail/tapas, and then the obvious sports bar at main entry. https://www.scotiaplace.com/project-overview/
 
Last edited:
I know how they could have saved some money and put it towards improving the overall aesthetic's….ditch the stupid useless attached parkade. Could have opened up a lot more room in the building for more glass and freed up some money to bolster overall materials. For me there is not enough glass, stone/brick, and wood on the exterior. Waaay too much shitty paneling for my liking.
 
CBBarnett said:
Overall my position is it's as exciting as a 2000s-era Cineplex but wanted to give it a little more effort below.

For iconic and important public civic buildings, beyond the functional requirements of the space, two of the main architectural goals are:
  1. Try to be unique - rarely does this me in an absolute sense, just locally unique. People should identify the building and space as an important one that's different than the countless other spaces in the city.
  2. Try to be "timeless" - it's a bit harder to know if you designed it to be timeless until lots of time has passed but the general idea is if this building is important and a new icon for the city, act like it. Use good materials that are durable and have demonstrated long-run popularity, use design restraint to avoid looking like fad architecture. Importantly, don't let the architectural elements overwhelm the function - whatever you make a public building out of, it won't last if it becomes functionally obsolete (e.g. Saddledome).
Being unique changes from place to place. For Calgary, this lobby really fails the uniqueness test - Calgary does not lack corporate-chic spaces like this. We might have the highest density of 2000s-era corporate lobby event spaces like this. Combine with Cineplex vibes and some design elements/materials found in modern Toyota dealerships it's remarkably underwhelming.

On the timeless side similar problem - it's timeless in the wrong way. The lobby isn't even built and it seems old, the wrong kind of old. The materials, the design all are trying so hard but from a place of lacking any real inspiration.

An example of what I'd propose is something more like Portland's new airport concourse. Great materials, design restraint, the right balance of curves and straight. This is a space that will age well and doesn't sacrifice the main functionality - have a big, high capacity space to filter people in and out. And borrowing this style would be unique for Calgary - we don't have anything like this.

View attachment 729633

To fix the lobby without redesigning the whole building, just straighten out some of the pointless swoopy bits, replace all that corporate panelling look with more intentional choices of stone, wood or brick and take lighting and the ceiling more seriously. At least cover up all the ducts!


Or just do that - go hard the other way, deliberately choose to make this place fun and silly! Get out of that uncanny design valley - right now it's a space that takes itself too seriously so you can't have an animatronic dragon, but also not interested in actually doing some great unique architecture and space design.
Click to expand...
I feel like underside and interior of the new(ish) library is the closest thing we have to this
 
Not sure if this was brought up before but will the camera angle for hockey configuration be similar to the Dome's or will be a little higher like Rogers Place?

I just hope it won't be as high as SAP Center's lol.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top