It will be tough to replace the dome, although both Montreal and Toronto replaces very iconic arenas with bland boxes, I sure hope that does not happen here as well. Saddledome is as much a part of the skyline as the Calgary tower as far as being iconic and something g that identifies Calgary as Calgary. Seems like the new rink will likely be hidden within a sea of towers though and not stand out to the extent that the saddledome always has.
In the next breath though I suppose if they can create that much better if a fan experience at events with bigger and better concourses, not missing the boat with regards to bathroom facilities I suppose the exterior won’t be as important.
I will miss the dome though, always have fun going there.
It's a good question you are hitting on. To what extent does it matter how "iconic" a stadium structure is?
Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg have all designed functional boxes with little architectural flourish (some of this by choice, some of it by era of design). All are clean and modern looking, all are very well attended and popular destinations for sports and concerts, all are about as centrally located as they can be. Edmonton's terribly old Rexall Place IIRC had substantially larger annual attendance than the Saddledome (most often attributed to the Saddledome's roof limitations for tier 1 concert tours). Ottawa's arena is often criticized by it's location choice, cited as the trigger for their new central location.
So if I could propose a theory of arenas based on this 4 sentence analysis of Canadian arena design:
- Must be as centrally located as possible
- Must be as multi-functional as possible
- Must avoid mistakes that ruin the environment around it (more important due to #1)
- Must avoid mistakes that ruin the ability to do #2 (e.g. Saddledome's roof)
I think there is a risk in focusing and trying "too hard" through aesthetic design alone. Tastes change of the lifespan of a building and can look dated even if you really think you nailed it in 2019. Guessing what will be iconic is a dangerous game that architects and designers the world over fall into. What is critical is the location and interaction to the surroundings. Even an ugly or boring building in the right location will out-perform a well designed one in a terrible spot.
Thank goodness that the location is already chosen and modestly improves on the current Saddledome's. With CMLC's involvement - and their thorough understanding of the importance of maximizing location and function potential, demonstrated by their underpass/access projects in the works and their "district approach" to Victoria Park - we are really shaping up to have a good arena project regardless of what it will look like.
I don't want to say design and aesthetics are not important - just that all other cities seem to have booming concert, sport and event scenes with highly utilized facilities that aren't notably iconic but are just done well, integrated into prime locations. "Nicer" looking and more "Instagram friendly" should be absolute goals, but should never come before the location (as in Ottawa's case) and function (as in the Saddledome's case).
