Page 3 of 94 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 9306

Thread: New Arena | Entertainment | Discussion

  1. #201
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Royal Gardens
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    Isn't it sometime this week that the Quarters development plan is supposed to go to council for approval? Could this be a way to delay the original plan or maybe get city council to support this arena proposal?
    My antidepressent drug of choice is running. Cheaper with less side effects!

  2. #202
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    It certainly has some awesome ideas.

    I love the idea of the concourse looking over the city with the clear glass, but at the same time, how would you put concessions in those upper levels?

  3. #203
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Nice.

    And this:



    ...makes it looks like the existing heritage building would be retained as part of the facade. And presumably the Army&Navy would be too, although I can't quite tell from the renderings.

  4. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT View Post
    I love the idea of the concourse looking over the city with the clear glass, but at the same time, how would you put concessions in those upper levels?
    It looks a bit like the concessions would only be on one side for the upper levels, or maybe just lots of escalators down?

  5. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    Nice.

    And this:
    ...
    ...makes it looks like the existing heritage building would be retained as part of the facade. And presumably the Army&Navy would be too, although I can't quite tell from the renderings.
    It and all the others are clearly there in the video.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  6. #206
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    also, this arena has 2000 underground parking spaces.


  7. #207
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,737
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This is a nice rendering of a building that looks like it is something one could build. Unlike some of the other aesthetically unique but impractical renderings I've seen, this one has a simple elegance that outlines its function, but envelops it in a minimal form for maximum effect.

    I like it - alot.

    I won't wade into a location debate - this concept works pretty much anywhere, especailly downtown.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  8. #208
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    Where is the "future" LRT station that was supposedly built for prisoner transferring located in regards to this new arena? Wouldn't it be under the Remand Centre, ie across the street?

  9. #209

  10. #210
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    All I can say it HOTT!!!! I love how they have those buildings on the inside, under the bowl. That looks so cool. PLEASE BUILD THIS!!! And I actually like this location better too. Very nice!

  11. #211
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
    Where is the "future" LRT station that was supposedly built for prisoner transferring located in regards to this new arena? Wouldn't it be under the Remand Centre, ie across the street?
    Yep... pretty much right across 103A Avenue by the Brownlee building.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    That is a wicked vision for the arena. Interesting that it is in the East Jasper location. I still think this on Baccarrat would be thee best.
    Yep, Chris's got it right. Like to see the concept on the Baccarat site.

  13. #213
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    I think I actually prefer this site... the Baccarat site is fine, but would rather see residential towers there and a new hotel/arena/casino at the new location. Plus, if Dub indeed owns most of the land there, he's not as likely to gouge the city to sell it like some other land owners would be.

  14. #214
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,542

    Default

    ^^"Yep, Chris's got it right. Like to see the concept on the Baccarat site."

    wants and needs are different things. obviously you haven't been to east Edmonton.
    Last edited by DTrobotnik; 24-11-2008 at 02:38 PM.

  15. #215
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    Ummm, I lived in Riverdale and walked through there on a daily basis on my way to school and work. So I know better than most what this neighborhood is currently like, and the potential it has to change.

  16. #216
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,542

    Default

    sorry dude, your comment slipped in before me

  17. #217
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Ummm, I lived in Riverdale and walked through there on a daily basis on my way to school and work. So I know better than most what this neighborhood is currently like, and the potential it has to change.
    sorry dude, your comment slipped in before me
    No worries... it happens.

  18. #218
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,542

    Default

    i live around that area. the walk to work is depressing. through all the "booms", nothing has really changed and it pisses me off sometimes. do we have to wait for all the commercial land to run out before we start developing east E-town? Is "boom" time the only time to consider changes to communities in need?

  19. #219
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    The plan for the Quarters will happen, it'll just take time... the city needs to fully approve the plan before anything substantial can happen. I hope things start to change soon though, and a new arena in this location will be a catalyst to getting this all started.

  20. #220
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    411

    Default

    I'm glad they're looking at underground parking rather than surface lots or parkades. The building also fits in with the current Quarters proposal for the area too. The one thing I am a little wary of is people from other cities referring to it as the Toilet Bowl or something along those lines because of its shape.

    That being said, it looks great. I'm also wondering if one of those towers will end up housing Rexall's corporate headquarters when built.
    Last edited by Megatron; 24-11-2008 at 03:25 PM. Reason: Clarity

  21. #221

    Default

    I dont see the resemblence to a toliet bowl.

    if anything, its a upside down chinese rice farmers hat...

  22. #222
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    411

    Default

    It wasn't me that was saying that it looked that way. I was just relaying some of the reaction that I had read on some other message boards.

  23. #223

    Default

    Ya, of course the Calgary HF people are going to choose silly names, they've had to live with the ugly saddledome, and jokes about it for 20+ years now...

  24. #224
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    If anything, it looks like a giant olympic torch... With the big golden bowl, all it needs is a big flame on top.

  25. #225

    Default

    Hmmm - with the two towers behind though - it does sort of look like a giant toliet bowl. A very fancy copper one though

  26. #226
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    Is the open area beneath the bowl open to the ouside? Or is it glassed in? I can't really tell.

  27. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    ^^"Yep, Chris's got it right. Like to see the concept on the Baccarat site."

    wants and needs are different things. obviously you haven't been to east Edmonton.
    You are correct. I haven't spent that much time there. But I'd hardly call it a 'need' exclusive to this area. I believe Edmonton as a whole needs this arena, but many areas want it. But whatever, let's just build it.

  28. #228
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    Is that main walkway covered with glass or open to the outdoors?

    oops, etownboarder asked already...

  29. #229
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speedyturtle View Post
    Is that main walkway covered with glass or open to the outdoors?

    oops, etownboarder asked already...
    At least I'm not the only one who isn't sure... lol. It would be cool if it was covered, allowing patio type things to be used year round instead of only during the summer.

  30. #230
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Old Strathcona, Edmonton
    Posts
    1,908

    Default

    I hope it would be covered, otherwise it would become a lovely wind tunnel...

    But wow, do I love the concept!!
    Almost always open to debate...

  31. #231
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Looks like a giant funnel down which you pour thousands of litres of champaign when they win the Cup.
    It also looks like the top of the Stanley Cup.
    Maybe they'll call it the funnel.

    I think it looks great, hope it gets built!

  32. #232

    Default

    Interesting concept. Copperpot maybe?
    Did Dub do this one too? Some functionality aspects that could use some clarification but done well it could be nice and useful. Still unsure if I like that location but since no one else is willing to use the space properly may as well get someone to at least do something there. Will it be accessable during the days for the smaller stores or are those dependent on the activities of the day?

  33. #233
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,737
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megatron View Post
    I'm glad they're looking at underground parking rather than surface lots or parkades. The building also fits in with the current Quarters proposal for the area too. The one thing I am a little wary of is people from other cities referring to it as the Toilet Bowl or something along those lines because of its shape.

    That being said, it looks great. I'm also wondering if one of those towers will end up housing Rexall's corporate headquarters when built.
    They call the current Coliseum the "Pillbox" or the "Aspirin", so the "toilet" is just another jab.

    Saddledump still is the best...

    As I look at this more and more, it looks like a fondue pot or a Wok (simple bowl on supports). So, Wok Box, Deep Fryer, Chafing Dish....mmmm, me now hungry...FONDUE NIGHT!!!!

    Seriously though, the copper works, the brick is a good reference to solid foundations etc, and the open approach will make this place look completely different than anything else in the league. No matter where they put this, it works - but only downtown!
    Last edited by RichardS; 24-11-2008 at 04:54 PM.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  34. #234
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,464

    Default

    Very, very nice.
    Exactly where do the dressing rooms go?

  35. #235

    Default

    only works downtown? this could easily work on south of Henday around 50th street....

  36. #236
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,464

    Default

    Checking out the video again it does look as though the bottom is open.

  37. #237

    Default

    I would believe that the openness we are seeing is actually glass enclosed.

  38. #238
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    I wonder if this is still in concept stage and if we'll see other options.

  39. #239

    Default

    So let's see:
    • Downtown? Check.
    • No surface parking lot? Check.
    • No damage to city's heritage (like Winnipeg did)? Check.
    • First NHL arena with architectural merit? Check.
    • First post-space-age yet non-boring NHL arena? Check.
    • Instantly recognisable icon for changing the perception of the city? Check.
    • Interactive streetfront? Check. (It doesn't even touch the ground!)
    • Good fit with existing neighbourhood? Check.
    • Complements and is complimented by existing retail? Check.
    • Helps build the city? Check. (And right where we need it most.)
    • Nearby LRT? Check.
    • Near enough to synergise with Churchill Square? Check.
    • Near enough to synergise with the Shaw Conference Centre? Check.
    • Functional logistically? Presumably.
    • Close to the same price as renovating Rexall? Apparently.




    I call one very steep uphill battle for the naysayers.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  40. #240
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Far from home
    Posts
    687

    Default

    ^ We'll absolutely see "other options" in the future.
    This is just a showpiece to gather steam and to get the various stake-holders (and the public at large) on board... Nothing more.
    Anyone with any sort of experience with architecture / construction / or multi-sport arenas in general could tell you that this thing isn't going to get built any time soon. Seriously, just look at the pictures... The section is especially revealing.

    I hate to say it, but I'm pretty underwhelmed. It's clearly not a real design, and as far as schematic "wow" renderings to win public support go... I've certainly seen better (check out the "prelims" for Winnipeg's new Bomber stadium).

    At the very least, it seems that they've introduced a new site that wasn't really on the radar before. That could be interesting.

  41. #241
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    yes, but they will still see current rexall transposed into a new downtown lot. very few will bother to actually look at the proposal. the biggest reply will be: "where will i park my 1/2 ton?"

    by the way, I love the way it looks. totally unexpected and very exciting. hopefully they don't cheap out and scale it back. is there room for edmonton sports hall of fame?

  42. #242

    Default

    Renton: Preliminary nonetheless, I like it. I agree about the location too.

    Perhaps there was an unheralded competition, and this is the Dub proposal. Next will we see the Healy proposal and the Gateway proposal? Or has this location been picked, I wonder.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  43. #243
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Far from home
    Posts
    687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    hopefully they don't cheap out and scale it back.
    But there's nothing to scale back. This isn't a real design to begin with.... Trust me!
    I'm not trying to be a negative nelly, but there's just so many things wrong with this plan so far.

  44. #244
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Interesting design, but I do not like the location. In my mind, the Quarters should be dedicated to civic offices and residential for professionals and maybe families. Having the arena here would create noise and disturbance that would keep a lot of people away.

    I would like to see the arena on the BP property, 105-106 street and Jasper. Still a bit residential, but mostly young people who would enjoy the hustle and bustle of the arena.

  45. #245
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I would believe that the openness we are seeing is actually glass enclosed.
    I sure hope so... if it was open, that would be a big mistake.

  46. #246

    Default

    First of all I want to say that I love this design. However, from watching CTV and reactions from some members of city hall I don't think this will get approval, at least not in that location. From what was said it seems like that area is slated for the quarters, which doesn't look like an arena would be welcomed there. Although I hope I'm wrong. Once again Gene Dub does himself proud, he's by far one of the best architects in the city and also the one with the biggest guts. It's too bad he lives in a city that doesn't think as large as he does. He has the kind of imagination that would fit in well in Chicago or New York, but here in Edmonton he seems to always be fighting the good fight. Good on him.

  47. #247
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    downtown edmonton
    Posts
    101

    Default We can do better folks!

    Come on Edmonton! This is the best we can do! Look, I'll admit the new design isn't ugly, but it's truly nothing special. When I first saw the design, I was underwhelmed. Modern doesn't always mean better. If you don't believe me take a look at our new art gallery - yikes! Let's get this right folks, as we onlly have one chance to do so. I want a design that has people all over the world talking. This design does not do that. Good luck!

  48. #248

    Default

    And, what would get the rest of the world talking? No matter what gets built, the world is unlikely to pay much attention to a new arena in Edmonton...unless you get a foster or hadid or the like to design it.

    I can't speak to the practicalities but I like the concept. I have a bit of an interest in arena design and I have never seen something like this. It's uniqueness is what would set it apart.

  49. #249
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,755

    Default

    I saw this on CTV News as well. It looks sweet, considering that it's a preliminary sketch only. Yes, Dub himself said that he does own the land across from the Brownlee. And considering its proximity to Chinatown, nicknaming it "The Wok" is very appropriate!! The location still works, it's only kitty-corner from the Post Office site where most people want it.
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 24-11-2008 at 09:21 PM.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  50. #250
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    It's a preliminary design... It's definitely bold, sexy, and interesting. With a few tweaks it will be perfect.

  51. #251
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,755

    Default

    Edmonton Journal article, along with the usual inane comments from the Sound Off peanut gallery (though I do agree that the number of seats needs to be more than 18000)

    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...6-fba856cd7509
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  52. #252
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    I think we'll see a number around 18,600 in the end.

  53. #253
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    maybe we can get some sort of sponsorship from the General Mills cereal division. It could be called : The Rexall Cheerios Bowl

  54. #254
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    I've been left rather unimpressed by it. Perhaps my view of architecture is different than others around here, but I would really rather not have a design that is intriguing only for a 1 hour Grand opening.

    I'm not sure what the best solution is for the arena, but I'm fairly certain this isn't it.

  55. #255

    Default

    Far superior to any other arena in NA I'd say. I really like the raised rink. Any concerns about Dub also being part owner of this property?

  56. #256
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    Nice.

    And this:



    ...makes it looks like the existing heritage building would be retained as part of the facade. And presumably the Army&Navy would be too, although I can't quite tell from the renderings.
    Seems highly doubtful they would go to such lengths to save those heritage buildings along 97st. BTW, Army+Navy would be retained according to the youtube video - Note (in the animation) the pedway connection from the Law Courts to A+N

    In favour of Architecture that is of our time and place.

  57. #257
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    582

    Default

    i think this site is a bit small for this form. looks kinda imposing, and makes for a terrible aerial view. at least as bad as current rexall.

    i'd rather see the arena dug into the ground, like a greek ampitheatre, but covered and heated.

    however i do love that site for the arena. could it be smaller?

  58. #258
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    239

    Default

    LOVE IT! I love that it's 3 floors above ground allowing for daytime use of the space and eliminating dead zones during the day. I love that there's parking for ppl who INSIST on parking @ the arena.

    only thought...not sure about the location...

  59. #259
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,767

    Default

    With the downtown Rexall having three or four levels of underground parking, it will be tough to put any of the arena underground.

    I really like the wide-open space of the arena, and its interface with shops (along 103A Avenue) will really make this interactive with the downtown streetscape.

    I also have a couple of suggestions:

    (1) The upper deck should have a limited number of rows (e.g. 10-15) if the accesses are at the bottom of the upper deck. This might mean more rows in the lower bowl.

    (2) Convention Facilities - might it be possible to have some facilities on the south side of the downtown arena, given its proximity to the Shaw Conference Centre?
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  60. #260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    That is a wicked vision for the arena. Interesting that it is in the East Jasper location. I still think this on Baccarrat would be thee best.
    I agree. The casino needs to go.

  61. #261
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,479

    Default

    Wow, that's one nice-looking building. Looks a bit like a cut diamond shape.

  62. #262
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i like the reference to the marigold. perhaps Dub should consider actually making petals on the outside and inside by using creative materials of different colours (copper petals with oiler blue outlines for example). Seriously make it look like a flower and all the 'toilet bowl" references will never stick. The Rexall Flower Bowl sounds a lot better.

  63. #263
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    So where are all the other architects "tossing of hat's" into the ring?
    Stunned that we haven't seen any updates from Kasian or do they feel that their proposal and proposed location is a done deal ?
    I am sure that Cohos, IBI, Stantec etc. would have something as well

  64. #264
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueline View Post
    So where are all the other architects "tossing of hat's" into the ring?
    Stunned that we haven't seen any updates from Kasian or do they feel that their proposal and proposed location is a done deal ?
    I am sure that Cohos, IBI, Stantec etc. would have something as well
    GMH and BZKA?

    At the end of the day, I'd be very surprised if it isn't HOK sprinkled with a bit of Stantec.

  65. #265
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    certainly didn't mean to ignore any of them.
    WAY too numerous to mention all of the posssible contenders, large or small

  66. #266
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Far from home
    Posts
    687

    Default

    First of all, I doubt we’ll see any other architects “tossing their hats into the ring”, as very few of them have a vested interest in doing so. Kasian, as the designer of Qualico’s Stationlands simply drew up a simple arena design as a “what if” sort of scenario. Their schematic design was a purely speculative endeavor, done on the behalf of a developer (who potentially has a lot to gain from a new arena). It isn’t any more or less a proposal than is Dub’s. Similarly, Gene Dub as both a landowner and as a designer (with the resources to make fancy fly-through videos and such) is simply showing off his vision for an arena on his parcel of downtown land. The arena design isn’t an open competition, so I wouldn’t expect to see anything from Stantec, Cohos, etc. any time soon.

    The thing is, I don’t believe Dub has officially been contacted by the city or the hockey team in any way. He’s just a business man, trying to show-off his land. In fact, this parcel isn’t even one of the “original six” locations that were mentioned in the city’s downtown arena report… You know, the ones that were actually being studied by HOK spe for feasibility.

    The downtown arena will be deisgned by our friends in Missouri, with a local firm taking on the CD's and administration... mark my words.
    In fact, with HOK opening an Alberta office last year, this could be an entirely in-house design (minus structural, mechanical, etc of course).

  67. #267
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Far from home
    Posts
    687

    Default

    As for this particular design itself… If we’re going to forget for a minute that this is just a play by a developer hoping to make his mark (as it seems most have), there are some pretty big questions being raised….

    Is it really sensitive to the neighborhood to impose a block-buster structure on an already existing urban grid… Especially one that is in the midst of becoming a mixed-use pedestrian oriented neighbourhood (and one in which the ONAAP outlined masterplan calls for the inclusion of more intersecting streets to induce walkability)?

    Speaking of sensitivity, is it actually feasible (as GoMod has already questioned) to retain the buildings on 97st and 103A ave? Furthermore, is it beneficial to do so? Is it actually possible to build an arena structure above these heritage buildings? Or do we have to rework their structures and interiors so much that all we’re really left with is their facades ala the Potemkin village? Is that historically sensitive? Is adding skywalks to the A&N for that matter?

    Does it actually make sense to raise the building that far above grade? Seems like a fairly imposing structure from the street. This isn’t exactly a slender point tower, and there are no significant step-backs to speak of. Seems that something half-sunken (like just about every other sports stadium / arena in the world) might be a little less destructive to the street-front environment.

    Speaking of which, what is the nature of a covered pedestrian street? Does it really feel like or function the same way as a traditional street? Judging by the past reactions on this site towards city-centre mall and the proposed stationlands, I would argue that most feel they are quite different. Is this the nature of development we want to pursue in the downtown east-side… less streets to be replaced by more indoor malls?

    What kind of circulation nightmare is created by reducing the number of arena concourses? Perhaps the pedestrian street / sub-rink level can be used on game day (which just goes back to how public an indoor street can really be) as a concourse level, but that still leaves us with one less level than the old coliseum. Look at the section. There’s no walkway around the top. The entire upper deck is therefore accessed from the bottom. Not to mention the whole pressbox, fly, and catwalk levels.
    In fact, where are the dressing rooms? Or the ice-plant? Where does the ice-resurfacer park? Yeah I know, these are small things… But they aren’t indicated in the drawings anywhere, leading me to question the over-all validity of this proposal. When designing a rink, these aren’t the kind of things that just get tacked on in the end. That’s not how good architecture works.

    Sorry, if I sound like a pessimist, but what we’ve been shown here is just downright brutal. The fact that this has been so widely praised, on a website (supposedly) supporting good urban design and architecture no less, actually offends me a little. Lets not let the idea of a downtown arena blind us into thinking any vision of such is a good vision. This one clearly isn’t.

    I patiently await counter arguments

  68. #268
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Far from home
    Posts
    687

    Default

    Oh and one more thing while I'm on my tirade.... that copper seating bowl:
    What material is that? If it's plated in real copper panneling, why follow the outline of the seats? The whole honesty of materials and "structure speaking" thing is kinda lost when you disguise the concrete. Plus it just looks dumb.
    Conversely, if it's not real copper, then what the hell is it? Vinyl? Paint? Accrylic stucco?

  69. #269
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Considering that this is only an initial vision more than a "proposal," your questions are perfectly valid. If this moves beyond the vision stage, those and many other questions and details would be addressed.

    As a vision, though, most people are responding to it's spectacularity (a word I just made up, right now), and in how Dub has attempted to incorporate existing buildings with new construction and maintain a predestrian-oriented environment, and to discuss the benefits/drawbacks of the proposed location. The details, not so much.
    Last edited by RTA; 25-11-2008 at 09:47 AM. Reason: Sorry, adding more as it comes.

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    Oh and one more thing while I'm on my tirade.... that copper seating bowl:
    What material is that? If it's plated in real copper panneling, why follow the outline of the seats? The whole honesty of materials and "structure speaking" thing is kinda lost when you disguise the concrete. Plus it just looks dumb.
    Conversely, if it's not real copper, then what the hell is it? Vinyl? Paint? Accrylic stucco?
    This is a concept - an idea. You are asking very specific questions that don't need to be asked right now and probably don't have answers right now.

    It's like designing a dream home. We don't care about how the plumbing is going to be routed, or through which wall the electrical wires are going to be run, and certainly not what brand of appliances are going to be used!

  71. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    As for this particular design itself… If we’re going to forget for a minute that this is just a play by a developer hoping to make his mark (as it seems most have),
    Yeah, after reading the Journal article, that did become clear, although I still think this preliminary design does introduce some innovations which I would gladly welcome as well. More on those below.

    there are some pretty big questions being raised….

    Is it really sensitive to the neighborhood to impose a block-buster structure on an already existing urban grid… Especially one that is in the midst of becoming a mixed-use pedestrian oriented neighbourhood (and one in which the ONAAP outlined masterplan calls for the inclusion of more intersecting streets to induce walkability)?
    Well first of all, we have to be honest that rightly or wrongly there is not much left of that neighbourhood, and the bulk of this proposal's future neighbours would have the option of how they would react to this. The few buildings on that specific piece of land do remain in this sketch (more on this below too. Also 103 Avenue itself does also remain, but by the looks of the sketch, is exactly pedestrianised (and I would half expect remain usable for delivery vehicles.)

    Speaking of sensitivity, is it actually feasible (as GoMod has already questioned) to retain the buildings on 97st and 103A ave?
    I couldn't tell you that.

    Furthermore, is it beneficial to do so?
    In my opinion, absolutely. We have so little left from the days that 97th was the greatest street West of Winnipeg that we can almost imagine ourselves in a city that was built in the '70's already. Except, of course, much of 97th itself which has been mothballed in marginality for decades.

    Is it actually possible to build an arena structure above these heritage buildings? Or do we have to rework their structures and interiors so much that all we’re really left with is their facades ala the Potemkin village? Is that historically sensitive? Is adding skywalks to the A&N for that matter?
    Specifically with regards to the A&N, which was originally built as "The Callidonian Department Store" or something, I can't quite remember now, it does appear gutted and transformed and the only part remaining does seem to be the facade. So, no, perhaps not that one, but the other two structures on 97th do appear to be kept separate

    Does it actually make sense to raise the building that far above grade? Seems like a fairly imposing structure from the street. This isn’t exactly a slender point tower, and there are no significant step-backs to speak of. Seems that something half-sunken (like just about every other sports stadium / arena in the world) might be a little less destructive to the street-front environment.
    Slender point towers do make a nice city like Vancouver, but is not their narrow girth not to make up for their height? Arena's aren't that tall, and the Brownlee building wouldn't really cower in its proximity, while the East side has both the narrow profile of the arena and the armature to descend from it, while the South and West sides in this sketch have the gradual build up in the existing buildings. I think it's also notable that the arena itself has been cut down as much as possible to only what it actually is, and the rest has been surrounded by glass for the maximum passage of light around it (although again, I think Brownlee would bear the brunt as well as any building could. In a way, you could call it Karma.) In any case, it has to come down to the fact that it's hard to hide an arena anyway, and I think unless we could bury it completely, raising it is the best possible way to do so.

    Speaking of which, what is the nature of a covered pedestrian street? Does it really feel like or function the same way as a traditional street? Judging by the past reactions on this site towards city-centre mall and the proposed stationlands, I would argue that most feel they are quite different. Is this the nature of development we want to pursue in the downtown east-side… less streets to be replaced by more indoor malls?
    It depends on the execution, but one of the first things this brought to mind for me was the Tokyo International Forum, which has two hemispheres of conference centre and auditoria joined by a huge over-arching canoe shaped glass cover, with completely open ends. The "street" running under the glass has so many trees on it that if you didn't look up you would seriously not notice you were "in" the complex at all. To be fair, it is still a bit megaplexishly sterile and forboding, but what can you do with necessary structures of this scale? And recently they started allowing street vendors operating out of the backs of trucks when major events were on, and low and behold, they really take the edge off it.

    In this design, having the bowl coated in copper will bounce the winter sun straight down onto 103 St. and would likely make it very pleasant, as well if they talk to someone in fluid dynamics about the best places to plant a dozen spruce trees down 103, I bet it would make a big difference in how the wind would move too. Then as long as the retail is well managed so that there aren't too many faceless franchises, and each "building" has it's own thought out but meaningful design, it would certainly feel more like a street than a mall, and again, how better can we really fit an arena into a streetscape? I've certainly never seen a better concept yet.

    I do realise that there are a lot of ifs there, but that's what I'm saying: it depends on the execution.

    What kind of circulation nightmare is created by reducing the number of arena concourses? Perhaps the pedestrian street / sub-rink level can be used on game day (which just goes back to how public an indoor street can really be) as a concourse level, but that still leaves us with one less level than the old coliseum. Look at the section. There’s no walkway around the top. The entire upper deck is therefore accessed from the bottom. Not to mention the whole pressbox, fly, and catwalk levels.
    In fact, where are the dressing rooms? Or the ice-plant? Where does the ice-resurfacer park? Yeah I know, these are small things… But they aren’t indicated in the drawings anywhere, leading me to question the over-all validity of this proposal. When designing a rink, these aren’t the kind of things that just get tacked on in the end. That’s not how good architecture works.
    I'm not going to pretend that I know, because I don't, but isn't the building between 103 Ave and 103a Ave, under the North concourse well situated for all of that?

    Sorry, if I sound like a pessimist, but what we’ve been shown here is just downright brutal. The fact that this has been so widely praised, on a website (supposedly) supporting good urban design and architecture no less, actually offends me a little. Lets not let the idea of a downtown arena blind us into thinking any vision of such is a good vision. This one clearly isn’t.
    Hey, with all the drunken reaction I came up with, you only sound like the sober morning after, but definitely not a pessimist. What could be better than asking for better? Yet I maintain that raising the arena is the single greatest idea I've seen in reducing its impact on the street, and the old 80's office tower cliche of reflecting most of the light it takes away I really think is going to endure for good reason. Furthermore, it's unique, has a surface which is textured and yet minimalist (it looks like a copper seating bowl, nothing more or less) and again, retains elements of our heritage. I do see your concern for feasibility in both the historical elements and the logistics, but I think if this preliminary ever moved to a secondary rendering, we could see both addressed.

    I patiently await counter arguments
    I know I'm not the best person to talk about design, so I hope it's worth the wait.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  72. #272

    Default

    I must correct myself about the Tokyo International Forum, its interior street is open to the sky as well as at the ends, and the glass canoe is over the conference centre portion only, but I still feel a similar effect, and I think the copper bowl would still, especially in winter, serve to reflect a lot of natural light.

    As for the material itself, I would prefer polished copper.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  73. #273
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Old Strathcona, Edmonton
    Posts
    1,908

    Default

    Moderator's note: I've moved this thread to the more appropriate "Buildings and Architecture" forum.
    Almost always open to debate...

  74. #274
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Far from home
    Posts
    687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deedub35 View Post
    This is a concept - an idea. You are asking very specific questions that don't need to be asked right now and probably don't have answers right now
    Yeah, some of the questions are too specific, but some of them are instrumental in the functioning of a major sports and entertainment centre as well. You don't design anything without properly considering circulation...Even if it is schematic or in the early stages, or whatever you want to call it.

    But really, those aren't the issues I'm most concerned with. Rather, what I'm trying to question are the broader topics that these renderings present: ie. the notions of public/private space as introduced by the closing of 103rd street, external vs. internal focus (again in reference to 103rd street), and what it means to preserve heritage architecture.

    Sorry, but this vision lacks vision and rigour. It's a token reaction to pedestrian walkability and heritage preservation. It's as if I asked a 3rd year architecture student to design this thing.... hell even the renderings look as amateurish.

  75. #275
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    It's as if I asked a 3rd year architecture student to design this thing.... hell even the renderings look as amateurish.
    wow quite the statement! then again I wouldn't know any better....
    i love lamp

  76. #276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    Sorry, but this vision lacks vision and rigour. It's a token reaction to pedestrian walkability and heritage preservation. It's as if I asked a 3rd year architecture student to design this thing.... hell even the renderings look as amateurish.
    It's a vision, and it has got people talking, and getting excited about a downtown arena. I don't see it as any more than that, it's fine to be critical, but I think its unfair to call any vision amateurish. Some of the greatest buildings of our time or any time were first sketched out with matchboxes, pen and paper, and who knows what. We all have a feel for Dubs idea now - good for him, and thanks to him for doing this.

  77. #277

    Default

    I'm more interested to know now if we will be soon hearing of other proposals coming out of the wood works too. I'll guess that there's probably a few others, but will we ever hear of them in concept stage like we have of Gene Dubs, unless they are officially chosen by the Katz/City and other stakeholders?

    Gene Dub obviously released this one for the Quarters discussion at council being done on the same day this hit the media/internet for a reason.

  78. #278

    Default

    Love the externalized ground floor shopping "streets"
    www.decl.org

  79. #279
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    I did find the big REXALL sign rather amusing as I just got back from one. World's largest pharmacy, haha.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  80. #280
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    31

    Default

    $300 Million Gene Dub estimate = $500 Million real World

  81. #281
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default

    With the slowing economy and the expectation that this will result in loser building costs, a significant rise in construction costs like the ones we've seen in the past couple years (i.e. 23rd Ave interchange) may not be as likely. I suppose the biggest issue right now would be whether or not funding for construction could be found due to the financial crisis.

  82. #282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I suppose the biggest issue right now would be whether or not funding for construction could be found due to the financial crisis.
    I'd like it if the Heritage Fund could be used to provide funding for major projects in Alberta that will contribute to our heritage. With a slow down, now could be a good time for this fund to invest in projects like this, providing a "shot in the arm" to our economy.

  83. #283
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    I like the concept, anyway. As others have already said, this is an early proposal and not much more. But I like having the open area underneath, it definitely reduces the imposition that such a large building inevitably makes on the surrounding area. Location and what it actually looks like, well that's all up in the air and can be improved.

  84. #284
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    poll is on at edmontonjournal.com
    so far "yes" and qualified "yes" votes total about 52% and "no" and "hell no" votes the other 48%.

  85. #285
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i just got another thought. i remember other online polls where support for the new arena was nowhere near 50%. now it seems to be at 50% (if we accept for a moment that online polls have any sort of validity). the difference is that now people have something to talk about and envision. many people before talked about how the arena will be different from current version. how it will provide for street interaction, be architecturally beautiful, and would not require acres of surface parking. Until this proposal by Dub, people did not believe such a thing was possible. They kept seeing a concrete monstrosity plucked in the middle of downtown. Even if this specific proposal does not happen, we owe Dub a thank-you for helping people get out of their close-minded visions and consider an alternative. Well done, Gene Dub, you get five golden pucks out of five! Oh, wait a second, don't want to perpetuate the "rich hockey player pay for your own arena stereotype". Oh, well, there is still that to battle. I think next on the list is a rendering of the inside set up for a concert, a trade show, a remembrance day ceremony, a new years celebration, oh and a hockey game followed by an educational video of how to park a 4x4 and walk or take an LRT.

  86. #286
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    and another poll on 630ched.com:

    Quote Originally Posted by 630 CHED on line poll at 15:21pm
    What's your initial reaction to Gene Dub's proposal for a 300-million dollar arena-apartment-retail development on the east side of downtown?
    I like it! 17.2%
    I'm NOT impressed. 49.4%
    I need to hear and see more, before deciding. 10.7%
    Like everything else, it depends on how it would be financed! 22.7%

  87. #287
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,066

    Default

    great concept... just needs refining
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  88. #288
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    967

    Default

    i must admit it, Dub's design did remind me alot of these built works....



    ^ The Zenith project is especially uncanny with its similar use, form and concept. Architect is Massimiliano Fuksas (nice name!)...more images



    ^ The Urban Ecosystem has a similar plan and structure to the ideas Dub presented...more images
    In favour of Architecture that is of our time and place.

  89. #289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    i just got another thought. i remember other online polls where support for the new arena was nowhere near 50%. now it seems to be at 50% (if we accept for a moment that online polls have any sort of validity). the difference is that now people have something to talk about and envision. many people before talked about how the arena will be different from current version. how it will provide for street interaction, be architecturally beautiful, and would not require acres of surface parking. Until this proposal by Dub, people did not believe such a thing was possible. They kept seeing a concrete monstrosity plucked in the middle of downtown. Even if this specific proposal does not happen, we owe Dub a thank-you for helping people get out of their close-minded visions and consider an alternative. Well done, Gene Dub, ...
    One nail smashed on the head. The momentum is going the other way.

    By the way, on an earlier theme, even though there isn't a formal competition, there is now a competition anyway. This design will hold sway with all decision making stakeholders, including Katz and the voters and Northlands. Whatever HOK comes up with will be compared to this whether anyone wants it to or not.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  90. #290
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,066

    Default

    or the new dallas opera centre GOMOD
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  91. #291
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,767

    Default

    I like the way that something that looks so simple, yet so elegant. It incorporates two classic buildings on 97 Street, it is inclusive, and it gives the impression of an open space.

    Once again, I think we need to speak up to show our support. This arena is a great opportunity for downtown.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  92. #292
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    North of Little Italy
    Posts
    770

    Default

    Polls (unless worded properly) & concept designs mean nothing..........


    Katz bought the Oilers with a $100 million loan from CIT - a corporation that has lost about 90% of its value over the past year...

    The arena requires financing - big time..... The downtown arena concept was put forward by CIT buddies........ None of them have money - CIT is begging to be included in the US government financing plan to avoid bankruptcy...


    Considering the present world-wide economic crisis is just starting to affect Edmonton, when the poll question is "Do you support your taxes subsidizing an arena for a billionaire?"

    When that question shows a positive result, I'll accept my position is wrong.........
    When in doubt - follow the money trail...

  93. #293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McCauley resident View Post
    Polls (unless worded properly) & concept designs mean nothing..........


    Katz bought the Oilers with a $100 million loan from CIT - a corporation that has lost about 90% of its value over the past year...

    The arena requires financing - big time..... The downtown arena concept was put forward by CIT buddies........ None of them have money - CIT is begging to be included in the US government financing plan to avoid bankruptcy...


    Considering the present world-wide economic crisis is just starting to affect Edmonton, when the poll question is "Do you support your taxes subsidizing an arena for a billionaire?"

    When that question shows a positive result, I'll accept my position is wrong.........
    your “position”:

    - your “arena for a billionaire” labelling ignores the other year-round non-Oiler related uses/bookings for the arena

    - ignores any revitalization attachments

    - ignores the $100 million pledge Katz made to assist financing the arena

    - labels city involvement as a citizen tax subsidy… before the final Northlands/Oilers “financing and management agreement” has been presented

    - assumes CIT Group financing participation… before the final Northlands/Oilers “financing and management agreement” has been presented

    - labels CIT Group as a bankruptcy candidate… being eligible to participate in the TARP bailout – participating in the TARP bailout – does not suggest bankruptcy avoidance… or are you also prepared to suggest that all these 90+ institutions are, similarly, seeking to avoid bankruptcy? http://bailout.uslaw.com/?page_id=353 Notwithstanding a suggested 2 Trillion dollars that the U.S. Federal Reserve has paid out, separate from TARP, in undisclosed payout loans. In any case... see previous point as to your assumed CIT Group financing participation in supporting your, uhhh.... position.

  94. #294
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    we have been there before. unless Katz moves into the arena and makes it his home, it is not an arena for a billionaire. the arena is for the city of edmonton to be used for several types of activities. roughly 1/9 (nights only) of the time it will be used for hockey. you continue to ignore the reality, mccauley r. you came up with the expression "arena for a billionaire" thinking you are being clever. you continue to repeat it even though it makes you look like a stubborn child who refuses to realize the obvious.

  95. #295
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,066

    Default

    ^thank you Grish.

    People like Katz are facilitators... do you really think money is his main driver here?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  96. #296
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,269

    Default Architect's proposal surprises council

    Architect's proposal surprises council
    Caterina put off by pitch for arena at hearing
    Jamie Hall, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: 8:55 am

    Architect Gene Dub said his surprise presentation at a public hearing Monday night was his "last chance" to make his vision for a downtown arena known to city council.

    Dub said the plan was discussed "months ago" with a representative from the Katz Group on behalf of Edmonton Oilers' owner Daryl Katz, and the city's planning department.

    "We haven't been getting any feedback (from planners), so this was the last chance for us to make our project known to council," said Dub, who said he made the presentation on behalf of himself and nine other property owners in the area.
    Concept drawing of architect Gene Dub's vision for a new downtown hockey arena.

    Dub's proposal, which seemed to catch councillors off guard, would see the arena built south of police headquarters on about two hectares of land and act as a focal point for revitalizing the rundown east side of downtown.

    "It's worth noting that the area we're looking at is just parking lots," Dub said Tuesday.

    Full Story: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...c-3056b5e49e0b

  97. #297
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    lol at Caterina at chastising Dub for derailing a meeting to fullfill his own agenda. ohhh the irony.

    All though it's unlikely, something this significant better be put on the table at such a meeting regarding the area.

  98. #298
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Dub said the idea for an elevated ice surface came out of a "brainstorming session" in his office. "It was just something we did," he said. "It's not something we've seen elsewhere.
    Isn't MSG's rink level above grade?...
    In favour of Architecture that is of our time and place.

  99. #299
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,066

    Default

    ^yup... and boston
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  100. #300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT View Post
    lol at Caterina at chastising Dub for derailing a meeting to fullfill his own agenda. ohhh the irony.
    I was thinking that, too.

    It's almost too bad it didn't show the arena on the current City Center Airport lands with an expanded NAIT, residential and commercial development, an LRT station, and a fancy interchange from the Yellowhead. You know, just to rub Caterina the wrong way even more.

Page 3 of 94 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •