News   Apr 03, 2020
 4.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.8K     0 

Calgary Field House | ?m | ?s City of Calgary |

I’d also add: a big barrier to getting a better project is the city thinking the university has money to contribute to outside of university projects and the city refusing to contribute money to in university projects.

The university needs to do a huge revamp of its athletics facilities. The university controls the land closer to two LRT stations.

Sit down for a series of workshops and mash all of these projects together and see what comes out. I’m certain it would be better.

I’d also put on the table land swaps and co development of city and university land to enable better road grid and development over time.

Right now as it goes the existing roads are being locked in for another 50+ years.
The university has built quite a lot of infrastructure over the last few years (Hunter Commons, new Haskayne building, etc.) and the new Science Hub that just got funding. I wonder once UD is more built out, would UCPG do something with the McMahon lands. A co-development of an athletic facility would make a lot of sense for the Dinos, selling housing units for UCPG and the city for cost sharing.
 
IMO the original pitch: indoor 400m track and field with facilities for every track and field sport was unique and could have stood on its own. A very large column free space to support that is difficult— corners of the contained field columns to compromise might have saved a good amount of money or perhaps note. Adding 10,000 spectator seats which could retract for more general gym areas was appealing if it was possible (again, harder with no columns).

The 200m hydraulic track and field now proposed as an outsider to the sport seems far less of a unique draw for tournament tourism purposes as does the 1,000 spectator capacity without temporary construction which limits yearly tournament use imo.

The indoor field is still be unique and will be nice. A couple ‘domes ‘ bring built with fields right now. I’m sure the stampeders will use it and the Dino’s. 500 spectators is disappointing.

The gyms? Not much to say about gyms. 3000 seat sports court. Are the colleges and universities busy enough that this is need?

It seems to me there was a grand concept which dictated what could be accommodated along with a 400m track. Then the track was scaled down but we kept the playing field anyways because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. And we still like the gyms that were ‘under the stands’ so we will keep them too.

Without a real first principles.

I don’t see today how there is much economy of scale by having these as one facility instead of three. If you could realize similar economies by sharing a cafeteria and hvac with almost any large building….

If we costed and compared to community demand the fancy track and field part I think the conclusion would be to drop that entirely.

But I think that’s wrong. What I wish we had instead was a costing of the Cadillac 400m version. If it was $50 m more for way more benefits I think the community could get behind.
I’d also add: a big barrier to getting a better project is the city thinking the university has money to contribute to outside of university projects and the city refusing to contribute money to in university projects.

The university needs to do a huge revamp of its athletics facilities. The university controls the land closer to two LRT stations.

Sit down for a series of workshops and mash all of these projects together and see what comes out. I’m certain it would be better.

I’d also put on the table land swaps and co development of city and university land to enable better road grid and development over time.

Right now as it goes the existing roads are being locked in for another 50+ years.
Thanks for this summary.

It reads to me as if we don’t really know what we want here and what the purpose of it is. Despite this we also have $100M+ set aside.

I also find this whole project kind of strange where the U of C doesn’t seem like a player in the project, despite the whole proposal seeming to imply it’s a university benefitting thing. I don’t really see how or why you’d need a competition venue if varsity sports weren’t part of the equation.

It seems like the university should be asking the city to help pay for this venue, not the other way around?

Strange project - gives me Banff train vibes: I’ve seen dozens of articles about it, no real material scope or progress though.
 
I hate that the city is focusing on this project too much instead of smaller projects they could be focusing on. Stuff like adding indoor gyms/ball courts to existing aquatic centre locations, replacement/renovation of dated city aquatic centres, construction of needed new public sport facilities (community arenas and aquatic centres), and updating outdoor rinks so they can be used year round (installation of synthetic ice during summer months)
 
IMO the original pitch: indoor 400m track and field with facilities for every track and field sport was unique and could have stood on its own. A very large column free space to support that is difficult— corners of the contained field columns to compromise might have saved a good amount of money or perhaps note. Adding 10,000 spectator seats which could retract for more general gym areas was appealing if it was possible (again, harder with no columns).

The 200m hydraulic track and field now proposed as an outsider to the sport seems far less of a unique draw for tournament tourism purposes as does the 1,000 spectator capacity without temporary construction which limits yearly tournament use imo.

The indoor field is still be unique and will be nice. A couple ‘domes ‘ bring built with fields right now. I’m sure the stampeders will use it and the Dino’s. 500 spectators is disappointing.

The gyms? Not much to say about gyms. 3000 seat sports court. Are the colleges and universities busy enough that this is need?

It seems to me there was a grand concept which dictated what could be accommodated along with a 400m track. Then the track was scaled down but we kept the playing field anyways because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. And we still like the gyms that were ‘under the stands’ so we will keep them too.

Without a real first principles.

I don’t see today how there is much economy of scale by having these as one facility instead of three. If you could realize similar economies by sharing a cafeteria and hvac with almost any large building….

If we costed and compared to community demand the fancy track and field part I think the conclusion would be to drop that entirely.

But I think that’s wrong. What I wish we had instead was a costing of the Cadillac 400m version. If it was $50 m more for way more benefits I think the community could get behind.
This is exactly my confusion. My interpretation of this whole dilemma is we lacked an international indoor track and field venue, correct, which at 400m was going to be $250-$300M due to the sheer size of the column free span? IF the plan now is to separate them all and build only a 200m track, what exactly makes this project unique? We have indoor courts and soccer fields elsewhere, and if the goal all along was only a 200m track then that can easily be built for probably $50-$60M. Just seems like "fieldhouse" isn't really capturing whats presently proposed
 
Something very similar was built for the Pan Am Games in Toronto in 2014. For $158M (2012 dollars and obviously would be higher now), they got an Aquatic Centre with two Olympic sized pools and diving area, and a 2000-seat Field house with 4 gyms, fitness centre, climbing wall, and 200m track. It was co-developed with the University of Toronto and now operates as a city and University facility. Seems like the exact thing we are trying to do. I just don't see how they'll convince the Province or the Feds to pitch in when we've cancelled our Commonwealth bid.
 
Something very similar was built for the Pan Am Games in Toronto in 2014. For $158M (2012 dollars and obviously would be higher now), they got an Aquatic Centre with two Olympic sized pools and diving area, and a 2000-seat Field house with 4 gyms, fitness centre, climbing wall, and 200m track. It was co-developed with the University of Toronto and now operates as a city and University facility. Seems like the exact thing we are trying to do. I just don't see how they'll convince the Province or the Feds to pitch in when we've cancelled our Commonwealth bid.
Yah, more expensive but that pool would have been probably $70m of that. I just think the high cost of this was associated with the large 400m track, and then filling the inside space and on the ends with courts, fields, and secondary tracks. It just feels like were gonna spend the $300m, get a second tier track, and then other amenities in adjoining buildings that we already have in the city.
 
It reads to me as if we don’t really know what we want here and what the purpose of it is. Despite this we also have $100M+ set aside.
A single community group had an idea, and it wasn't a bad one, so the project has slowly inched along. The city has indicated the project's low priority by not placing it high enough on its list to the federal and provincial governments, knowing that the funding envelope would be depleted before the field house was reached on the list every time.

The project was first mentioned in the news paper almost 25 years ago.
"Track group looks at Burns: Multi-sport facility proposed for post- Cannons' era" - September 23, 1999
Minor sports groups are lining up at the plate for a crack at turning the soon-to-be vacant Burns Stadium into their own version of a Field of Dreams.

But turning these dreams into reality remains as challenging as a Randy Johnson fastball for groups representing the track and field and soccer communities.

Burns Stadium, which sits on city-owned land at the corner of Crowchild Trail and 24th Ave. N.W., will be home to the Calgary Cannons until they leave, as expected, for Portland after the end of the 2000 Pacific Coast League baseball season.

The Calgary Track Council is preparing to pitch the city with its idea -- a structure that would house an indoor track, cycling velodrome, soccer fields, and other gym and office space.

The track and field community has been batting around the idea for an indoor track in Calgary for years.

"The idea for a track field house was around before the 1988 Calgary Olympics," said Dale Schoenthaler, of the CTC. "But the idea was sidetracked with the Olympics. Of course, the Olympics were given more priority."

The Alberta Soccer Association is also interested in the Burns Stadium site and drafted a letter to the city last week. The ASA would like to convert the facility into an outdoor pitch worthy of hosting international games.

Schoenthaler noted other Canadian cities with winters similar to Calgary's have indoor tracks -- Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Regina, Windsor, Ont., and Montreal.

Calgary has a four-lane track at Lindsay Park, a two-lane track that rings the Olympic Oval and a six-lane track at the University of Calgary's Jack Simpson Gym. None are large enough to host high- calibre meets.

"Being a major city like this, we don't have a field house to practice or hold competitions," said Schoenthaler, who is also a coach with the Calgary Spartans track club.

The CTC is willing to share its dream of an indoor facility with other sports because, for one reason, the city will not consider a proposal that is not multi-use.

"So we're looking at everything from track to soccer, to cycling, volleyball, to baseball, to gymnastics, to whoever after that," said Schoenthaler.

Gary Sampley, executive director of the ASA, said while he hasn't heard from other interested sport groups, he would be interested in meeting with Schoenthaler.

"We thought the most economical way, if the Cannons go, was to leave it as a natural grass stadium, but convert it to soccer and football," said Sampley. "We thought that could be done at a reasonably low cost."

Calgary lost its only sufficient natural-grass venue when Mewata Stadium was torn down.

The Calgary Soccer Federation has also been looking for land to house a second indoor facility. The CalgarySoccer Centre, which has seven indoor fields in the city's southeast, is bursting at the seams with ever-increasing registrations. Edmonton has a second indoor facility opening Oct. 13.

But Sampley pointed out an indoor soccer centre would need room for at least four fields, dressing rooms, a lounge and offices.

"But without talking to the (CTC), you don't know what's possible and what's not," he said.
 
"Indoor Track & Field" and "Outdoor Track & Field" are two different sets of events, although serious athletes often compete in both, specifically because of the lack of facilities. There is only one other indoor 400m track in Alberta, at UofA. There is also no real facility to practice 110m Hurdles, 400m Hurdles, 4x100m Relay, any of the throwing events, and of course, the Decathlon/Heptathlon.

The Decathlon winner is traditionally considered the World's Greatest Athlete, and Canada is home to the current holder of the Olympic Gold Medal & Olympic Record, the last 2 World Champions, and Current #1 & #3 ranked athletes. Canada is the world leader on this stage, and there is no where in Calgary for athletes to train for these events for ~7 months of the year.

The reconfiguration of the Field House plan to a 200m track changes this building from one of the premier track & field facilities in the country, to something that simply adds to existing capacity. For example, many local community centres like Talisman/Repsol/MNP/WhateverOil&Gas Centre have a 200m indoor track.
 
Agreed. With no new funding committed yet, I would hope that they would revisit the the track size for this facility. If we're gonna do this - and put hundreds of millions of dollars in to it - do it right.

Hopefully the full funding actually comes into fruition within the next couple of years. Aside from lacking a proper track and field training facility for the winter months, the university recreational and athletic amenities are outdated and pushing capacity. This facility is as much, if not more of a need for them, than the city. I agree with @CBBarnett that the university should be pushing for this, and asking the city to partner up, rather than the other way around. Perhaps if the proposed site lands were to become part of the universities, it would be a strong sell then. I know the university was exploring the concept of having a fieldhouse built on top of the Kinesiology A building, as part of a renovation/expansion that fell through.
 
Agreed. With no new funding committed yet, I would hope that they would revisit the the track size for this facility. If we're gonna do this - and put hundreds of millions of dollars in to it - do it right.

Hopefully the full funding actually comes into fruition within the next couple of years. Aside from lacking a proper track and field training facility for the winter months, the university recreational and athletic amenities are outdated and pushing capacity. This facility is as much, if not more of a need for them, than the city. I agree with @CBBarnett that the university should be pushing for this, and asking the city to partner up, rather than the other way around. Perhaps if the proposed site lands were to become part of the universities, it would be a strong sell then. I know the university was exploring the concept of having a fieldhouse built on top of the Kinesiology A building, as part of a renovation/expansion that fell through.
The Pan Am model for UofT Scarborough and city of Toronto would've been a good model. Although I think this would've been further along if we had major events lined up like the Commonwealth games. I doubt we'll get anything federally anytime soon with the government focused on housing and political survival. And the province maybe in 4 years when it's time to buy Calgary votes again.
 
With no new funding committed yet,
It was to be funded for the Olympics, seating 10,000 (2500 permanent+7500 expansion)
1712266264948.png

1712266293940.png

1712266322940.png
 

Back
Top