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
From the elevations, all those blank angular planes at weird angles, all those materials, and all those colours are going to struggle in a decade to not look dated. What's throwing my eyes off is this mix of random angles / colours with horizontal windows at random intervals.

What's hard to imagine from the diagram is the scale - it's such a big building, maybe there's not really an issue with have such a jumble of materials, each section is so huge it doesn't really matter there are many styles.
I think the reality is, we are staring at an entire building on a page right now...when these elements become human scale, it will look very tasteful. I find the design to be somewhat timeless personally, good use of streel level windows, clean natural stone, LED boards, muted aluminum white panels....not much that can "date", IMO. The angles will become less obvious, again, at human scale
 
Last edited:
You cannot go wrong with natural materials at the human scale. I have high hopes for the stone, wood, and small bits of brick. The windows should also help make the building feel more accessible not so sterile.
 
Documenting things can slow projects down but you will never regret good documentation. Good to be held accountable for the "we're managing risks, trust me".
 
Wait, when did this thing become 1.25 billion? 🧐
 
Wait, when did this thing become 1.25 billion? 🧐
What do you mean? This project has always been quoted at 1.5 billion. They have been very tight with the budgeting and are confident it is a 1.75 billion dollar project. I can assure you this facility will be completed for the stated 2 billion price tag
 
That made me LOL 😆 Thanks man.
 
Big_Dig.png
 
It just wouldn't be bureaucracy without finding something, anything at all, that needs improvement. "We completed A B C D E & F"... "Agreed, but we'd prefer it be in A B C D F & E order, even though we acknowledge that your process leads to the exact same result"
 
It just wouldn't be bureaucracy without finding something, anything at all, that needs improvement. "We completed A B C D E & F"... "Agreed, but we'd prefer it be in A B C D F & E order, even though we acknowledge that your process leads to the exact same result"
It's funny how this complaint works both directions - if this project goes off the rails and people start looking for someone to blame "why didn't they have a hand-off and close out plan, that could have mitigated these issues," it's also the bureaucracy's fault.

If the bureaucracy is too loose on the rules "they are wasting our taxpayer dollars by failing to do enough diligence!" if they are too tight on the rules "they are wasting our taxpayer dollars by being too bureaucratic!". It's a no win scenario for some audiences.

Given the billion dollars of taxpayer invest proactive project auditing, and reporting of that auditing, shouldn't be surprising.
 

Back
Top