Mountain Man
Senior Member
McMahon has the bones to be renovated into a decent stadium, this would be awkward as hell.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
darwink
Senior Member
In the end that was what was recommended for Olympic Hosting. A hundred million for McMahon, and big air at the grand stand.
Joborule
Active Member
The grandstand option main weakness would likely be the angle of the seats on both sides of the field. The seats are oriented to face the centre of the rodeo portion. On the CFL field, patrons sitting in the central part of the stands would have to twist necks extensively more than they would at McMahon currently. Considering the central seats are suppose to be more premium, that's not an ideal trade off if maximizing revenue is the main goal.
To address that, you may end up replacing the stands completely. At that point, you're playing the comparison game of is it worth it cost wise? As well if there's long term intentions of aiming for a MLS level team as a tenant, and get national level soccer/rugby games being played there, you gotta have the appropriate facility for that too. So is renovating McMahon both the cheaper option, as well provides the best value? Is it similar to putting in the work to Grandstands to get that up to par, or better? Or would building a new stadium at a different location (could still be within C+E area) be best?
This is getting fairly off topic. If discussion is to continue on this subject, might be better in a new thread.
lemongrab
Active Member
It's not a huge angle...maybe about 7 degrees? It would be better than McMahon for the outer sections. Latest NFL stadiums seem to be ovular with similar angles away from midfield:
If it was a big problem at midfield it might be possible to reorient the seats in the middle 4-6 sections. And of course you could design the new opposing grandstand however you'd like.
I think one huge advantage of the Grandstand is there is no real alternative land use (compared to McMahon land which could be developed into anything).
If it was a big problem at midfield it might be possible to reorient the seats in the middle 4-6 sections. And of course you could design the new opposing grandstand however you'd like.
I think one huge advantage of the Grandstand is there is no real alternative land use (compared to McMahon land which could be developed into anything).
Mountain Man
Senior Member
If Calgary ever secures an Indy race or something like that (Formula E would blow some minds in this city I think lol), then the grandstand would be a natural fit, aside from that it's really only useful for Stampede. McMahon is better suited to football in pretty much every way. $100M would turn that into a decent stadium for sure, maybe not BC Place or IG Field level but better than BMO or Tim Horton's.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I'll quickly throw some roads, highways and infrastructure talk in here to justify the rest of this post... By combining facilities you really start to justify the infrastructure spending in Victoria Park for the new Victoria Park Stampede station, 17th Ave extension, 5th Street SE underpass, Green Line LRT, Stampede Trail, Riverwalk continuation along the Elbow River, 25th Ave and Macleod Trail intersection upgrades, and (eventual) Erlton Stampede station update. Along with whatever else this could spur. Suddenly by combining facilities the large infrastructure investment in the area starts to have that much payoff... Now on to the current topic.
The Grandstand has a lot of potential as the home of the Stampeders. The problem is that its just too awkward of a fit as its built. The answer to the square peg round hole problems of getting the Stampeders down to C+E is completely rebuilding the Grandstand and infield. With a blank slate approach you could really do something special. The grandstand is pretty outdated, as a 10-day facility it shouldn't have much if any money sunk into it, as a 10-day plus Stampeders, and other events maybe stretching its use suddenly you have the opportunity to do something special:
Imagine a stadium or as it would likely be dubbed Large Events Centre, capacity is about 30,000 (plus standing room) but it can be expanded to 40,000 for extra large events. There's a 18,000-20,000 seat grandstand on the west side and 8,000-10,000 seat smaller grandstand on the east side. Sprinkle in the standing room areas that would connect the two grandstands and you get to 30,000 pretty easily. I think that's a good number for the Stampeders and Stampede, if you want to add capacity, simply build some bleachers in the standing room areas. Shrinking the length of the west grandstand you'd likely be forced to build a bit higher to maintain the current Grandstand capacity, not a big deal. You could building a bigger east grandstand than what's there now because if you've ever been to the chucks and sat low on the grandstand or in the infield you end up watching the backstretch on a screen anyways.
For Stampede, you bring in a bunch of dirt to cover the now slightly-sunken field to complete your track and infield. Remove the standing room areas that connect the two grandstands and the field-level suites (I'll get to those later), then you're ready to go.
For the Stampeders or Soccer, Rugby, and other events including open community use, the biggest change compared to Stampede configuration would be the standing room areas connecting the two grandstands (think Pilsner patio like they have at Mosaic) that can be removed or added to for extra capacity (add bleachers for Grey Cup) and where the chutes are for Stampede, you can add some field-level suites that are slightly-raised above the players bench.
The build-out would be pretty simple, one summer after Stampede, demolish the west grandstand and build the new west grandstand, or as much of it as you can before the next year's Stampede. After that greatest outdoor show on earth demolish the east in-field seating and build the new east grandstand. There would be a couple odd years of the Rodeo, Chucks, and Grandstand show that take place in either half built or temporary bleachers but once its done you've got something that works for both primary uses. And between the big events a large open sports field could pretty easily find some uses by the C+E. Not to mention I'm sure CSEC wouldn't mind combining offices somewhere in Victoria Park with the Stampede, the only office space you'd need at each facility would be the operators and direct team staff. Add a football/rugby/soccer practice field and community rink to Victoria Park next to the CSEC/Stampede offices and suddenly you're filling in a lot land in Victoria Park.
The Grandstand has a lot of potential as the home of the Stampeders. The problem is that its just too awkward of a fit as its built. The answer to the square peg round hole problems of getting the Stampeders down to C+E is completely rebuilding the Grandstand and infield. With a blank slate approach you could really do something special. The grandstand is pretty outdated, as a 10-day facility it shouldn't have much if any money sunk into it, as a 10-day plus Stampeders, and other events maybe stretching its use suddenly you have the opportunity to do something special:
Imagine a stadium or as it would likely be dubbed Large Events Centre, capacity is about 30,000 (plus standing room) but it can be expanded to 40,000 for extra large events. There's a 18,000-20,000 seat grandstand on the west side and 8,000-10,000 seat smaller grandstand on the east side. Sprinkle in the standing room areas that would connect the two grandstands and you get to 30,000 pretty easily. I think that's a good number for the Stampeders and Stampede, if you want to add capacity, simply build some bleachers in the standing room areas. Shrinking the length of the west grandstand you'd likely be forced to build a bit higher to maintain the current Grandstand capacity, not a big deal. You could building a bigger east grandstand than what's there now because if you've ever been to the chucks and sat low on the grandstand or in the infield you end up watching the backstretch on a screen anyways.
For Stampede, you bring in a bunch of dirt to cover the now slightly-sunken field to complete your track and infield. Remove the standing room areas that connect the two grandstands and the field-level suites (I'll get to those later), then you're ready to go.
For the Stampeders or Soccer, Rugby, and other events including open community use, the biggest change compared to Stampede configuration would be the standing room areas connecting the two grandstands (think Pilsner patio like they have at Mosaic) that can be removed or added to for extra capacity (add bleachers for Grey Cup) and where the chutes are for Stampede, you can add some field-level suites that are slightly-raised above the players bench.
The build-out would be pretty simple, one summer after Stampede, demolish the west grandstand and build the new west grandstand, or as much of it as you can before the next year's Stampede. After that greatest outdoor show on earth demolish the east in-field seating and build the new east grandstand. There would be a couple odd years of the Rodeo, Chucks, and Grandstand show that take place in either half built or temporary bleachers but once its done you've got something that works for both primary uses. And between the big events a large open sports field could pretty easily find some uses by the C+E. Not to mention I'm sure CSEC wouldn't mind combining offices somewhere in Victoria Park with the Stampede, the only office space you'd need at each facility would be the operators and direct team staff. Add a football/rugby/soccer practice field and community rink to Victoria Park next to the CSEC/Stampede offices and suddenly you're filling in a lot land in Victoria Park.
lemongrab
Active Member
I think you undersell the benefits of the existing grandstand:
- Premium seating venues (Ranahans/Lazy S) - pretty unique design offering a different kind of 'suite' experience...Stampede time it's definitely a more efficient revenue generator than using that same space for individual suites (which they have in the infield)
- A lot of those middle deck seats can be more climate controlled
- Fully indoor concourse - currently they winterize it each year, so not sure if it's HVAC is optimized for colder temps, but it's almost certainly an improvement on McMahon concourses
- Mostly covered seats (entire upper deck; first 15ish lower rows are exposed)
- Arguably better accessibility? Elevator and escalators to upper deck...
- Pretty sure every single seat has a back rest (no bench bleachers like McMahon) - can't remember the outer red sections, but pretty sure they are just older seats
At most you might simply replace the seats in the middle 4-6 sections if orientation is an issue.
You'd build a new east grandstand tailored to your needs...a lot of different ways that could go, but moving on from the chuckwagons would make things a lot easier and open up tons of opportunities for Stampede to improve 10 day operations.
- Premium seating venues (Ranahans/Lazy S) - pretty unique design offering a different kind of 'suite' experience...Stampede time it's definitely a more efficient revenue generator than using that same space for individual suites (which they have in the infield)
- A lot of those middle deck seats can be more climate controlled
- Fully indoor concourse - currently they winterize it each year, so not sure if it's HVAC is optimized for colder temps, but it's almost certainly an improvement on McMahon concourses
- Mostly covered seats (entire upper deck; first 15ish lower rows are exposed)
- Arguably better accessibility? Elevator and escalators to upper deck...
- Pretty sure every single seat has a back rest (no bench bleachers like McMahon) - can't remember the outer red sections, but pretty sure they are just older seats
At most you might simply replace the seats in the middle 4-6 sections if orientation is an issue.
You'd build a new east grandstand tailored to your needs...a lot of different ways that could go, but moving on from the chuckwagons would make things a lot easier and open up tons of opportunities for Stampede to improve 10 day operations.
Duck Lightning
Active Member
A new Stadium would have an expansive concourse, suites, offices, lounges, restaurants, and good site lines. Jerry rigging the 70's era grandstand as a football stadium still gives us a stadium that's worse than what Winnipeg and Regina have even though we have more than there populations combined here in Calgary.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
You say lounges and restaurants and I think about how underutilized the 'front door' to the Grandstand is. I imagine and restaurant at ground level that goes on to look out at the field or infield.
Kind of awkward with the Nutrien building blocking Stampede Trail but maybe you could do something to extend Stampede Trail down to the front of the Grandstand?
lemongrab
Active Member
I take it you've never been to Ranahans or Lazy S?
Joborule
Active Member
I don't think Calgary should be aiming to have better stadium than those two cities have. They put in a lot of money, for a league that's not finically stable, and honestly has an uncertain future. Those stadiums are high quality builds, but expensive. I don't think CSEC needs to, or is even interested, in spending that much money to match that tier. Especially since they're intending to put down money for their main property, which is the arena. And the city certainly won't be interested in putting in that much also.
I think the aim should more so be for a Tim Hortons Field. Enclosed concourse, good seats and sightlines, decent luxury suites, and endzones that function as patios for regular games, and can have temporary seats during major events is more than suitable with the current environment. Around $100 million could do the job whether it's renovating McMahon to standards, or upgrading the Grandstands.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
IMO the biggest problem with the current Grandstand is that its too long, for both football and I'd argue the Stampede Rodeo. I have never been to either of those places you mention and I'm sure they're great but if you're redoing the infield seating you're likely doing something with the Grandstand, even if it's a small renovation. Removing sections (which I think you would want/need to do and extending the life of the Grandstand overall could come with a similar price tag as building new from the ground up.
Like Joborule says, do it like Hamilton or even Ottawa. Simple is better and should be the trend for this type of facility.
lemongrab
Active Member
I don't know why you'd really need to touch the existing grandstand (beyond any existing plans for lifecycle upgrades). The crappy seats at the ends are handy for special events, and of course you can still add to them. Each side of McMahon is about 173m long at its longest. The Grandstand proper is about 180m long...the 20m of crappy grandstand on each side are irrelevant.
It just seems like starting with 10-12k good seats and fantastic super-suite infrastructure would be a nice headstart on any stadium project and essentially cuts the required build in half.
Operational issues like building maintenance and staffing must be a real headache for a venue like McMahon that sees so little use.
It just seems like starting with 10-12k good seats and fantastic super-suite infrastructure would be a nice headstart on any stadium project and essentially cuts the required build in half.
Operational issues like building maintenance and staffing must be a real headache for a venue like McMahon that sees so little use.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
I really don't get the appeal of renovating the grandstand into an awkward stadium, over renovating McMahon. I can't see any way that this would be a better experience for fans or the team.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I'm not one for renovating, I prefer a staged rebuild. Which in my opinion would get rid of the awkwardness I see when trying to do both in one.
The appeal, well I think of it like this... As a taxpayer it would simply get used more, better bang for public dollar spent (because obviously its not private money doing this). As a fan a new venue would give you at the very least a modern sports experience, which is more than you can say for the average person going to the Stampeders or Stampede (suites need not apply). As a owner of the Stampeders or Stampede you simply make your product better and more appealing hosting it in a modern stadium, plus you give yourself more opportunity to make money in non-football/stampede events (if you share revenue).