Do you support the proposal for the new arena?

  • Yes

    Votes: 102 67.5%
  • No

    Votes: 39 25.8%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 10 6.6%

  • Total voters
    151
Anything that teases out what might be structural versus things that can be removed would be neat. I doubt without an engineering degree could conclude much more than casual observations for construction photos, but if you see one that stands out (a cross section? mind throwing a screenshot up here?

Also, depending on the provenance, the University might appreciate a copy for the architecture archives.
 
Anything that teases out what might be structural versus things that can be removed would be neat. I doubt without an engineering degree could conclude much more than casual observations for construction photos, but if you see one that stands out (a cross section? mind throwing a screenshot up here?

Also, depending on the provenance, the University might appreciate a copy for the architecture archives.

It's 128 pages. Found a way to share by link.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wqw7a1l6z5b1he7/BP1981-F2991 - Architectural Plans - Roll 1 .pdf?dl=0

Elevations on pg 67/68. Sections start at pg 69.
 
Last edited:
Cool!

So, undoing my previous speculation and enthusiasm, I bet a significant tension load from the roof is supported from the stand supports - almost like flying buttresses but internal. With enough load removal, is the lower bowl buttress needed? My gut says yes (the lower bowl butresses exist for a reason), but a study might say no with a reduction of load.
1608665812758.png


I guess the question for reuse: how much more is the blue circle (concourse butresses) worth to convention business versus the green circle (lower bowl buttresses).
1608666311703.png


Could always do this instead: a floor at concourse level, and a daylighting of the concourse, leaving the buttresses and removing the prefab seating sections, but you loose a lot of flexibility (and the potential for lowest possible cost) and the appeal of a high column free surface with the ability to truck things in:
1608666505894.png
 

Attachments

  • 1608665242060.png
    1608665242060.png
    292.4 KB · Views: 185
Last edited:
I've heard more news regarding the event centre development,

Firstly it looks like the building will be sponsored by Scotiabank, and either be called Scotiabank Centre possibly Place. Scotiabank has priority rights to the namesake of the building since they are the current sponsor of the Saddledome, and it looks like they don't plan of changing that at the moment. Other interested parties are both WestJet and Air Canada, Telus, Shaw, and I've heard CN being thrown around too. But the Scotiabank naming is pretty much certain.

Secondly, expect a very neutral looking interior with grey seats rather than red. This is for good reason but I can't discuss why just yet. Expect seats in a similar colour to MetLife Stadium.

Lastly the club seat section will very likely be Sponsored by Telus.
 
Secondly, expect a very neutral looking interior with grey seats rather than red. This is for good reason but I can't discuss why just yet. Expect seats in a similar colour to MetLife Stadium.
I am very curious to hear this reason when you are able to disclose it. I will admit I have no idea what logic goes into the colour of plastic stadium seats, so it will be enlightening for me.
 
I recall when the Saddledome was first built, they said the green and blue seat colors were chosen because they are calming colors. Not sure where gray would fit in, but green and blue are known to be calming. Prisons have temporary holding cells painted green and blue where they put prisoners to calm down after outbursts, etc...
 
After a quick google, an Aussie Rules Team provided an explanation for the neutral seat color choice:

"The seat colour and design had to be durable for the unique Western Australian climate, be visually appealing, comfortable, not impact on on-field performance and offer contrast to the colours of our home teams,"
 

Back
Top