PDA

View Full Version : New Downtown Calgary Arena


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Surferguy
Sep 20, 2012, 4:29 PM
I seem to recall such an idea being mentioned in the past and the issue was you couldn't have the huge open center area without supports that a stadium/arena demands, and still support something on top of it.

How does MSG have stacked stadiums then? or maybe I should back up but isn't MSG stacked, ie basketball on top of hockey etc?

Calgarian
Sep 20, 2012, 4:29 PM
There's no way you could build an underground hockey arena with a football stadium on top right beside the river. The water table is only a few feet down so building this would require a massive thick concrete wall to keep the water out, as you would need to excavate a couple hundred feet down (which would be a huge cost without the water table issues). Factor in the load of a football stadium over an arena that needs a clear span (because really, who wants an arena with columns) and this idea becomes really impractical. Building an arena and stadium that are side by side would be the best bet.

Calgarian
Sep 20, 2012, 4:29 PM
How does MSG have stacked stadiums then? or maybe I should back up but isn't MSG stacked, ie basketball on top of hockey etc?

No, MSG is one building, they just cover up the ice every time there is a non hockey event.

Surferguy
Sep 20, 2012, 4:32 PM
No, MSG is one building, they just cover up the ice every time there is a non hockey event.

copy that

Innersoul1
Sep 20, 2012, 5:42 PM
True, thought about that but then decided I would leave that problem for more educated people.

Regarding the bunker comment above from KW, I honestly don't think it would be any different from the current stadium.

I cannot say once inside the stadium I ever remember trying to see sunlight from outside, it just does not factor in. Furthermore, games and concerts are usually at night and mostly in winter so IMO the bunker thought line would be no different from current standards. At the saddledome at least

Specifically for arenas there has been a move over the past five years to incorporate more natural light into the concourse areas. This is often very useful in giving the concourse a much more open airy feel. Additionally, depending on the location it can incorporate key sightlines of the skyline, landmarks or geographical features.

For example, the views from the Saddledome towards downtown are amazing. Having huge windows featuring that view from the concourse would be awesome!!

You Need A Thneed
Sep 20, 2012, 6:08 PM
I wouldn't say that building arenas on top of each other is impossible. There's not much of construction that's impossible. It may just be really expensive.

Calgarian
Sep 20, 2012, 6:53 PM
I wouldn't say that building arenas on top of each other is impossible. There's not much of construction that's impossible. It may just be really expensive.

It's not impossible, it's just cost prohibitive.

5seconds
Sep 20, 2012, 7:27 PM
It's not impossible, it's just cost prohibitive.

Unless the cost to do it is less than the cost of the land required for both facilities, i doubt it will happen. I love the idea though!

craner
Sep 20, 2012, 11:45 PM
No, MSG is one building, they just cover up the ice every time there is a non hockey event.

I believe the ice surface at MSG is on the 5th level with other uses below. But you are correct that the same level/arena is used for hockey & bball.
Having said that, the idea of a football stadium built over an arena is a non-starter.

93JC
Sep 21, 2012, 3:41 PM
Absolutely it is a non-starter. I'm surprised that no one mentioned the fact that the footprints of a football stadium and a hockey arena are nothing alike. You would make either a massive arena (if the building was built to suit a typical football stadium size) or a tiny stadium (if the building was built to suit the size of the arena).



The Flames don't have the money to build an arena AND a stadium AND a convention centre, nor do they have the money to clean up the "west village" lands. The likelyhood of a new sports arena being built there is remote, let alone an entire sports/convention 'complex.

SubwayRev
Sep 21, 2012, 4:09 PM
I believe the ice surface at MSG is on the 5th level with other uses below. But you are correct that the same level/arena is used for hockey & bball.
Having said that, the idea of a football stadium built over an arena is a non-starter.

That's correct, ice level is 5 floors above the street, and the 'Theater at Madison Square Garden' is below the main arena. It's a venue that holds ~5000.

Stang
Sep 21, 2012, 8:59 PM
I wonder if the city and province would be involved in the cleanup of the contamination on the site. I'm not sure what the precedents and standards are for that sort of thing, but if the new owner is going to be on the hook for contamination from decades ago, the land will probably go unused (or underused if we're counting asphalt and car dealerships as a use) forever.

mersar
Sep 21, 2012, 9:29 PM
I wonder if the city and province would be involved in the cleanup of the contamination on the site. I'm not sure what the precedents and standards are for that sort of thing, but if the new owner is going to be on the hook for contamination from decades ago, the land will probably go unused (or underused if we're counting asphalt and car dealerships as a use) forever.

Most of the West Village land is owned by the city currently I believe. I recall some discussion about ownership back when the West Village plan was first touted. At least some of the car dealerships are leasing land from the city, the Mercedes dealer decided to cancel construction of their already underway building and build on other land they actually owned on 10th Ave instead as they didn't like the uncertainty of building something that they'll eventually need to relocate.

JayCortese
Sep 28, 2012, 7:50 PM
Is the saddledome being demolished or something?

You Need A Thneed
Sep 28, 2012, 9:07 PM
Is the saddledome being demolished or something?

After a new arena is built, it may be. The Saddledome won't have much of a purpose at that point, at least as it is.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 30, 2012, 4:50 PM
Might be cheaper to keep the Dome as a replacement for the Corral considering the demand for contiguous exhibition space. Put the upper bowl and nose bleeds in mothballs in case they are needed in 20 or 30 years it can be reconditioned.

Of course, that is under the assumption that maintenance and operations costs of a scalled down facility wouldn't be off the charts compared to the Corral.

RammerDino
Sep 30, 2012, 5:53 PM
Is there a problem keeping the Saddledome as home to the Hitmen/Roughnecks rather than demolishing it? It was a very important part of the Olympics after all.

Joborule
Sep 30, 2012, 6:29 PM
Is there a problem keeping the Saddledome as home to the Hitmen/Roughnecks rather than demolishing it? It was a very important part of the Olympics after all.

I figure Flames ownership would want those team playing in their new arena since they own those teams as well.

DizzyEdge
Sep 30, 2012, 8:37 PM
I wonder if some crazy idea like turning the saddledome into condos could work.
or the coolest shaped movie theatre ever with 2 screens at each high end.

Riise
Sep 30, 2012, 9:47 PM
I wonder if some crazy idea like turning the saddledome into condos could work.
or the coolest shaped movie theatre ever with 2 screens at each high end.

I think it would make more sense to have the screens located centrally.

I'm all for an adaptive re-use!

DizzyEdge
Oct 1, 2012, 3:57 AM
^^ yes that would make a lot more sense

You Need A Thneed
Oct 1, 2012, 4:47 AM
I think it would make more sense to have the screens located centrally.

I'm all for an adaptive re-use!

Indoor water park/amusement park.

Innersoul1
Oct 1, 2012, 8:49 PM
I wonder if some crazy idea like turning the saddledome into condos could work.
or the coolest shaped movie theatre ever with 2 screens at each high end.

I think it would make more sense to have the screens located centrally.

I'm all for an adaptive re-use!

I think that the condo idea is a good one and it worked for Highbury in London England BUT I don't think the shell is the right shape.

That being said, a very unique idea might be what Ryerson University has done with Maple Leaf Gardens. I think that it is VERY unique and keeps the lasting legacy of the building.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/sports-video/video-inside-ryerson-us-maple-leaf-gardens-renovation/article609425/

This shows a cross section of the building usage:
http://www.blogto.com/upload/2010/10/20101019-MLGsideview.jpg
Credit: Blogto.com

A grocery store might not fit into the whole Stampede Park deal. But it could be some very useful space.

suburbia
Oct 1, 2012, 10:13 PM
^^ yes that would make a lot more sense

Previous discussions had highlighted the Biodome in Vancouver as an interesting re-use of an arena-type structure. In that case it was previously a velodrome from the '76 Olympics.

Calgary does not have an aquarium, and a hockey arena already has ample water. Could be cool. Plenty large enough for polarbears too. Maybe the balance of the arctic stuff the zoo has stalled on because of no money. Interestingly, the little down windows on the saddledome already look like some type of marine portals.

Any sure, some water slides on the other side for the "polar bear swim" types.

DizzyEdge
Oct 1, 2012, 10:21 PM
Previous discussions had highlighted the Biodome in Vancouver as an interesting re-use of an arena-type structure. In that case it was previously a velodrome from the '76 Olympics.

Calgary does not have an aquarium, and a hockey arena already has ample water. Could be cool. Plenty large enough for polarbears too. Maybe the balance of the arctic stuff the zoo has stalled on because of no money. Interestingly, the little down windows on the saddledome already look like some type of marine portals.

Any sure, some water slides on the other side for the "polar bear swim" types.

Shared waterslides and pool for polar bears and humans. And plenty of seating for watching.

RammerDino
Oct 6, 2012, 2:32 PM
I figure Flames ownership would want those team playing in their new arena since they own those teams as well.

Then what about the Vancouver Giants in Pacific Coliseum, the Canucks' old arena? And it was just about time I heard the Flames franchise owns the Roughnecks.

Joborule
Oct 7, 2012, 11:16 PM
Then what about the Vancouver Giants in Pacific Coliseum, the Canucks' old arena? And it was just about time I heard the Flames franchise owns the Roughnecks.

The Canucks don't own that team don't they? I know the city owns that venue though.

Also Flames building a new arena would mean there are two arenas of exact purposes within the same area. There's no need for that and would be a waste to maintain the Saddledome in it's current form when the alternate is next door.

5seconds
Oct 12, 2012, 6:50 PM
Interesting renderings for the new stadium in Quebec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6W-7Oif-7M

P6W-7Oif-7M

Calgarian
Oct 12, 2012, 6:57 PM
It's a lot more subtle than the Edmonton proposal but looks decent.

monocle
Oct 12, 2012, 9:37 PM
Itll probably work in our favour to have QC and Edmonton build (or start) their barns first.
Although, I imagine Efmonton's will no longer be so ooh & ahh inspiring, given the current situation.

suburbia
Oct 17, 2012, 11:05 PM
Edmonton arena is virtually dead:

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/406962/edmonton-downtown-arena-negotiations-continue-without-daryl-katz/

Coldrsx
Oct 17, 2012, 11:10 PM
Edmonton arena is virtually dead:

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/406962/edmonton-downtown-arena-negotiations-continue-without-daryl-katz/

Katz played his ante, this was the City's. They are ceasing negotiations with the current deal. Not necessarily a bad thing, for each side wants a new deal.

Doug
Oct 17, 2012, 11:11 PM
Edmonton arena is virtually dead:

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/406962/edmonton-downtown-arena-negotiations-continue-without-daryl-katz/

Good news. Maybe this will turn the tables on pro sports owners pillaging government. The Oilers won't move because there are too many other teams looking to move.

Doug
Oct 17, 2012, 11:12 PM
Katz played his ante, this was the City's. They are ceasing negotiations with the current deal. Not necessarily a bad thing, for each side wants a new deal.

The next offer from the City should be $0, and Katz will take it. NHL teams are not a scarce resource.

tdurden5573
Oct 18, 2012, 4:25 PM
New arenas really need to incorporate an entertainment element. Staples Center in LA is a perfect example, replace surrounding surface lots with bars, restaurants and evening entertainment facilities. This encourages people to come down, have dinner and hang out before an event. LA does have an ideal climate for 'mingling around', but Calgary could have indoor elements.

I like how the Quebec arena integrated a winter element to this by including an outdoor rink. Having a few small rinks for people to play shinny would be cool, Include outdoor screens for people to come down, play hockey and watch the game would be great!

DizzyEdge
Oct 18, 2012, 5:32 PM
Looking at this across the street from the Staples Center

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=staples+centre&ll=34.043828,-118.266038&spn=0.003589,0.005284&fb=1&hq=staples+centre&cid=0,0,2302601910583800533&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=34.043828,-118.266038&panoid=o7kacraBQBIRC5x-hUMpTQ&cbp=12,16.07,,0,-0.55

Makes me think that not only could entertainment be incorporated with an Arena, but maybe it could be an opportunity for Calgary to create it's own Dundas or Times Square.

DizzyEdge
Oct 18, 2012, 5:33 PM
another view

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=staples+centre&ll=34.043841,-118.266277&spn=0.003589,0.005284&fb=1&hq=staples+centre&cid=0,0,2302601910583800533&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=34.043854,-118.266565&panoid=YAIfaIrDoyrjAqfmlR3uEg&cbp=12,111.09,,0,0.09

patm
Oct 18, 2012, 5:49 PM
New arenas really need to incorporate an entertainment element. Staples Center in LA is a perfect example, replace surrounding surface lots with bars, restaurants and evening entertainment facilities. This encourages people to come down, have dinner and hang out before an event. LA does have an ideal climate for 'mingling around', but Calgary could have indoor elements.


They're starting to kind of do this with the Cowboys Casino. It would be great if the new arena was attached to that so you could walk around with your drink from the arena to the casino to the bars and Restaurants

suburbia
Oct 18, 2012, 9:26 PM
Looking at this across the street from the Staples Center

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=staples+centre&ll=34.043828,-118.266038&spn=0.003589,0.005284&fb=1&hq=staples+centre&cid=0,0,2302601910583800533&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=34.043828,-118.266038&panoid=o7kacraBQBIRC5x-hUMpTQ&cbp=12,16.07,,0,-0.55

Makes me think that not only could entertainment be incorporated with an Arena, but maybe it could be an opportunity for Calgary to create it's own Dundas or Times Square.

Don't forget it is also a convention centre complex and the Nokia sign is for the Nokia Theatre. I've been advocating the Staples Centre model for years (and our convention centre needs to look at the South Hall in their complex).

bigcanuck
Oct 18, 2012, 10:02 PM
Don't forget it is also a convention centre complex and the Nokia sign is for the Nokia Theatre. I've been advocating the Staples Centre model for years (and our convention centre needs to look at the South Hall in their complex).

It's a great place for a conference - I was there a couple of years ago and stayed at the JW Marriott, rode the elevator to get to the convention facilities, and walked out the door to select from a dozen or so fantastic restaurants. Plus, took in a Lakers and a Kings game across the street. If it were possible to "start over" with the entire downtown arena and convention centre possibility, the LA Live/Staples Center area is a good starting point.

Barnes
Oct 19, 2012, 8:40 PM
Good news. Maybe this will turn the tables on pro sports owners pillaging government. The Oilers won't move because there are too many other teams looking to move.

There are? Name one...

polishavenger
Oct 19, 2012, 8:56 PM
There are? Name one...

I dont follow NHL but isnt Nashville, Florida, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Phoenix, Tampa all in crappy markets?

monocle
Oct 20, 2012, 1:09 AM
Keep in mind that Edmonton has a new 2.7 km track just finishing paving out at castrol, if the new barn doesn't make sense

Barnes
Oct 20, 2012, 1:55 AM
I dont follow NHL but isnt Nashville, Florida, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Phoenix, Tampa all in crappy markets?

Crappy market doesn't necessarily mean they are wanting to move.

Nashville has seen a large jump in valuation recently and Calgary's Brett Wilson has joined the ownership group.

Florida, yeah kind of but the team was purchased in 2009 and has sucked for a long time. Things are looking better for them.

The Islanders need a new building badly but moving out of the area makes no sense.

New Jersey is an enigma.

Phoenix is a gong show and as long as the City of Glendale is dumb enough to keep paying for the team or an owner actually comes up with financing the team will stay. They are the most likely to be moved but the NHL is in no rush.

Tampa has had some of the worst ownership groups in the league but as of 2010 have had a really strong ownership that have made some really good moves to better the team and have had some successes with Yzerman as GM.

NHL owners are quite happy to break even or not on NHL hockey if they can make money on other events through owning or operating an arena. The Oilers neither own nor operate Rexall Place. They don't get to deduct any costs for hockey related revenue owed to the league to pay players. Outside of Rexall being a dump, the primary reason for a new building is to deduct as many costs by either owning and/or operating a popular building.

There are a few markets that will soon support NHL hockey but there is no way the NHL board of governors OKs a move of an existing team and gives up a massive expansion fee for Qubec City, Seattle, GTA. As far as I know (outside the Coyotes) there are no teams currently up for sale.

Barnes
Oct 24, 2012, 3:23 PM
The Islanders will announce today that they are moving to the Barclay's Center in Brooklyn. Calgary will have the third oldest building by 2015.

Ayreonaut
Oct 24, 2012, 5:36 PM
Probably a good move for the Isles, getting closer to the core of the city. Is that where the Nets are now?

Innersoul1
Oct 24, 2012, 5:46 PM
The Islanders will announce today that they are moving to the Barclay's Center in Brooklyn. Calgary will have the third oldest building by 2015.

The Barclay Centre is a great facility. It seemed like an obvious mover, just needed to be negotiated! I wonder how the whole revenue thing will play out with them moving to "The Bank."

You Need A Thneed
Oct 24, 2012, 5:55 PM
Probably a good move for the Isles, getting closer to the core of the city. Is that where the Nets are now?

Yes, the Nets are playing there, starting this year. The building is brand new. And the building is right in the core, not merely closer to the core.

Ayreonaut
Oct 24, 2012, 8:15 PM
I think Brooklyn seems to have the most 'local' pride of the boroughs, so hopefully the team is well-supported as 'Brooklyn's team'.

Innersoul1
Oct 24, 2012, 8:35 PM
Yes, the Nets are playing there, starting this year. The building is brand new. And the building is right in the core, not merely closer to the core.

It's a great looking building but given that it was not built for hockey the configuration for hockey games is REALLY wonky at one end. Check out the pics on this page:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=159071&page=45

Calgarian
Oct 24, 2012, 8:49 PM
It's too bad they didn't think of hockey when they designed that place, otherwise great looking building.

freeweed
Oct 25, 2012, 5:45 PM
What's interesting about the Isles is that they're expecting to fit barely 15,000 in for hockey once a few adjustments are made. Which is pretty much the same as Winnipeg's "too small" arena.

I think this really speaks volumes as to the future of the NHL. This is the continent's largest market and their second team is going to play out of the smallest barn in the league, on par with the smallest city in the league. Their 3rd team is basically bankrupt and could move at a moment's notice.

I only hope Calgary doesn't follow this pattern. 15,000 seats here would exclude anyone who doesn't work at Banker's Hall. You'd be talking $100+ for nosebleeds - demand would be insane. It would be worse than Toronto.

Calgarian
Oct 25, 2012, 6:00 PM
What's interesting about the Isles is that they're expecting to fit barely 15,000 in for hockey once a few adjustments are made. Which is pretty much the same as Winnipeg's "too small" arena.

I think this really speaks volumes as to the future of the NHL. This is the continent's largest market and their second team is going to play out of the smallest barn in the league, on par with the smallest city in the league. Their 3rd team is basically bankrupt and could move at a moment's notice.

I only hope Calgary doesn't follow this pattern. 15,000 seats here would exclude anyone who doesn't work at Banker's Hall. You'd be talking $100+ for nosebleeds - demand would be insane. It would be worse than Toronto.

I think the numbers they have been throwing around are all in the 18000 seat range.

How are site lines in the Bell Centre? they hold around 22 000 and have about the number of boxes Ken King is looking for.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 25, 2012, 7:20 PM
I have sat in the super nose bleeds in the Bell Centre. Sure, you are high up, but I had no complaints.

freeweed
Oct 25, 2012, 7:32 PM
I think the numbers they have been throwing around are all in the 18000 seat range.

How are site lines in the Bell Centre? they hold around 22 000 and have about the number of boxes Ken King is looking for.

We'll never see another Bell Centre (never say never, but still...).

The reduced seating is less about boxes, and more about the fact that nosebleeds just don't pay for themselves. At least not unless the building lasts 50 years (which is unheard of these days).

Joborule
Nov 2, 2012, 9:12 PM
Looks like renovating McMahon is the plan for Flames ownership.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Selling+naming+rights+could+help+fund+renovations+McMahon+Stadium/7479587/story.html#ixzz2AwMXVzTP

artvandelay
Nov 2, 2012, 11:04 PM
Looks like renovating McMahon is the plan for Flames ownership.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Selling+naming+rights+could+help+fund+renovations+McMahon+Stadium/7479587/story.html#ixzz2AwMXVzTP

Only $15m....sounds like more of a bandaid than a long term solution.

monocle
Nov 2, 2012, 11:11 PM
Article says possibly a $100MM reno eventually, and new stadium "a long shot".

Calgarian
Nov 2, 2012, 11:14 PM
They say the renos are mostly involving the washrooms and stuff like that. King admits it needs at least $100 million or we need a new stadium, and a new stadium is a long shot.

artvandelay
Nov 2, 2012, 11:29 PM
Oh didn't see that quote, I should have read it more thoroughly.

Pretty soon Regina and Winnipeg will have brand new top class stadiums; it would be a shame if we here in Canada's wealthiest city could not come up with something at least as nice if not better.

monocle
Nov 2, 2012, 11:34 PM
Surely, Encana or the like would enjoy having their name associated with the best city in Canada's new stadium.

Looks to me there is lots of room on the current site to build a new one, while playing out of McMahon. Or, am off base/side?

Innersoul1
Nov 3, 2012, 11:05 PM
I have sat in the super nose bleeds in the Bell Centre. Sure, you are high up, but I had no complaints.

The 500 level seats at the Bell Centre are amazing!

Luk_o
Nov 4, 2012, 5:27 AM
For fucksakes. Why are they sinking more money into McMahon?! Put it into a long term plan to build a new one! As a long time season ticket holder I would be happy to up with 8 more years of this shit stadium if it meant Calgary was getting the new facility it deserves.

MalcolmTucker
Nov 4, 2012, 6:27 AM
It doesn't work like that with how outsized construction costs are today to the value of the finished good. And that is speaking as someone whose legs are too long to sit in any McMahon seat reasonably comfortably (except for the big party box).

Joborule
Nov 4, 2012, 7:28 AM
It doesn't work like that with how outsized construction costs are today to the value of the finished good. And that is speaking as someone whose legs are too long to sit in any McMahon seat reasonably comfortably (except for the big party box).

Any major renovation done to McMahon requires those rows to be extended so average size people can fit their legs.

The layout foundation of McMahon is fine. Just strip away all the seats, and replace them with backrest seats and cup holders, while reworking the rows spacin. Add luxury suites on both sidelines, and new seating on both endzones. Improve and enclose the concourse as well. Oh, and better scoreboard.

McMahon can be turned into a state of the art stadium for it's size. But it will take more than $100M to do it.

Coldrsx
Dec 12, 2012, 6:33 PM
Edmonton has an update - Katz Group before Council as we speak. They mentioned Calgary's potential new arena. They also say no Provincial funding.

http://3.cdn.nhle.com/oilers/images/upload/gallery/2012/12/121212_arena7120149801_slide.jpg

http://3.cdn.nhle.com/oilers/images/upload/gallery/2012/12/121212_arena10120121498_slide.jpg

http://oilers.nhl.com/club/gallery.htm?id=32061&location=/photos&pg=1

freeweed
Dec 12, 2012, 7:07 PM
I wonder what's going to happen with our respective arena situations in light of the lockout. In 94, people still cared. In 2004, people still cared. Today? I really get the sense that government funding in any form will be more harshly viewed than at any time in the past.

After watching owners and players basically throwing their money out the window for the past few months, and US municipalities bankrupting themselves trying to pay for their mistakes... I really don't see a lot of hope for new buildings anytime soon.

Bigtime
Dec 12, 2012, 8:22 PM
Couldn't agree with you more Freeweed, this is the worst possible time for any team to try and pitch for public funding.

In my opinion they can get fucked. Plain and simple.

The Fisher Account
Dec 12, 2012, 9:02 PM
This is interesting...


Gord Gillies ‏@Gord_Gillies
hmm.Oilers guy Pat Laforge talking about rink plans for #yeg, mentions something about #yyc getting a HUGE new venue. stay tuned! #flames

Gord Gillies ‏@Gord_Gillies
Laforge says the 'size & scope' of the #yyc venue will impact #yeg when it comes to concerts, etc. That'll be a switch! #hello-A-listbands!

freeweed
Dec 12, 2012, 9:20 PM
Good luck getting public funds to pay for a bunch of over-paid hockey players to perform concerts.

You Need A Thneed
Dec 12, 2012, 9:23 PM
There's no way to justify public money going into a dome replacement. Whenever Nenshi talks about it, he sounds pretty against it too, but says "I'd need to be convinced."

Spring2008
Dec 12, 2012, 9:39 PM
This is interesting...


Gord Gillies ‏@Gord_Gillies
hmm.Oilers guy Pat Laforge talking about rink plans for #yeg, mentions something about #yyc getting a HUGE new venue. stay tuned! #flames

Gord Gillies ‏@Gord_Gillies
Laforge says the 'size & scope' of the #yyc venue will impact #yeg when it comes to concerts, etc. That'll be a switch! #hello-A-listbands!

Oh boy. Wouldn't that be funny if after 6-7 years of delays while constantly hearing the same old story of how desperately Edmonton needs this downtown arena to attract investment into the core etc, and with the arena project in Calgary totally being on the back-burner, that Calgary be the city that actually goes ahead and builds a new one.

I know it has been mentioned before, but I'd much rather see a grand, signature downtown Convention Centre mixed in with new hotels, retail, urban park; ideally it would be situated close to the tracks just south of EAP. This quickly growing, global business hub needs something like this much more than a new arena. And while we're at it, build an lrt extension from the NE line connecting the airport to downtown!!!

kw5150
Dec 12, 2012, 9:45 PM
I think the NHL forgot that the rinks would have to be replaced eventually. Then they started paying players WAYYYYYYY too much.......and now are like "DOH!"

Im so pissed of at this whole player / association shitshow. Where is the loyalty to the fans? The hockey players are just turning out to be rich brats.

Maybe this is the end of the world........I enjoyed hockey when I played, what happended to these doofs? If I could have even made 80,000 to be a hockey player that would make me happy.

People expect wayyyyy too much today.

The player need to realize that they have to give some money back in order to make the industry sustainable.

Calgarian
Dec 12, 2012, 10:52 PM
Yeah I don't support $.01 of city money going to a new arena when we should be focusing on the next phase of the LRT!

DizzyEdge
Dec 12, 2012, 10:55 PM
:previous:

In fact, if the city does discuss funding an arena, they should frame the discussion as how many years doing so will delay LRT expansion and see what public opinion follows.

Stephen Ave
Dec 12, 2012, 10:59 PM
Yeah I don't support $.01 of city money going to a new arena when we should be focusing on the next phase of the LRT!

I don't have a problem with the city funding a portion of a new arena, if it means a better overall master plan. Of course there would have to be something in it for the city, some sort of revenue besides taxes.

s211
Dec 12, 2012, 11:02 PM
Oh boy. Wouldn't that be funny if after 6-7 years of delays while constantly hearing the same old story of how desperately Edmonton needs this downtown arena to attract investment into the core etc, and with the arena project in Calgary totally being on the back-burner, that Calgary be the city that actually goes ahead and builds a new one.

Calgary's certainly got far more can-do than other Western Canadian cities.

Stephen Ave
Dec 12, 2012, 11:03 PM
Once Calgary gets a new arena you'll see most of the artists choosing Calgary over Edmonton. In most cases they'll go to both cities, but if choosing only one city, it will mostly be Calgary.

I'm not sure why they're using the Calgary arena as an argument, regardless of what Edmonton does for an new arena it won't change that outcome.



Gord Gillies ‏@Gord_Gillies
Laforge says the 'size & scope' of the #yyc venue will impact #yeg when it comes to concerts, etc. That'll be a switch! #hello-A-listbands!

freeweed
Dec 13, 2012, 3:46 PM
:previous:

In fact, if the city does discuss funding an arena, they should frame the discussion as how many years doing so will delay LRT expansion and see what public opinion follows.

Sure, as long as you frame every other public expenditure this way. New library? It will delay the LRT. New convention centre? Public art on transportation projects? New drop-in centre? Affordable housing? Yup, they'll all be delaying the LRT, folks!

If anything, the city should be reminding the public that the NHL only uses the Saddledome for ~44 nights a year (the Flames keep missing the playoffs). Our junior kids play a lot of hockey there, we have concerts, the Stampede uses it, and a bunch of other stuff that I'm probably not even aware of.

freeweed
Dec 13, 2012, 3:49 PM
I'm not sure why they're using the Calgary arena as an argument, regardless of what Edmonton does for an new arena it won't change that outcome.

I think the point came up wherein council is being made to realize that concert revenues are not going to be as high as was first thought, because Calgary will end up pulling away so many.

I'm not entirely sure why - perhaps this was the Katz group trying to justify more city spend because they (Katz), as arena operators, wouldn't be seeing quite as much revenue as originally forecast.

Calgarian
Dec 13, 2012, 4:06 PM
Lets see what has the Katz group all excited! c'mon King show us something!

Coldrsx
Dec 13, 2012, 4:50 PM
Once Calgary gets a new arena you'll see most of the artists choosing Calgary over Edmonton. In most cases they'll go to both cities, but if choosing only one city, it will mostly be Calgary.

I'm not sure why they're using the Calgary arena as an argument, regardless of what Edmonton does for an new arena it won't change that outcome.

That will be interesting to see... for it is far more about booking agents and promoters than arena.

DizzyEdge
Dec 13, 2012, 4:53 PM
Sure, as long as you frame every other public expenditure this way. New library? It will delay the LRT. New convention centre? Public art on transportation projects? New drop-in centre? Affordable housing? Yup, they'll all be delaying the LRT, folks!

If anything, the city should be reminding the public that the NHL only uses the Saddledome for ~44 nights a year (the Flames keep missing the playoffs). Our junior kids play a lot of hockey there, we have concerts, the Stampede uses it, and a bunch of other stuff that I'm probably not even aware of.

Alright you got me on that, my concern is the cost of a new arena would be far greater than most other city projects, putting a more significant dent in LRT expansion. Then again that assumes that any LRT expansion would even involve city money vs provincial.

kw5150
Dec 13, 2012, 5:31 PM
Agreed. Can we start a savings trust? I dont even go to sport venues, but i realize how many other people enjoy them. Could we not make a 10-15 year plan to get a new stadium / rink?

Oh didn't see that quote, I should have read it more thoroughly.

Pretty soon Regina and Winnipeg will have brand new top class stadiums; it would be a shame if we here in Canada's wealthiest city could not come up with something at least as nice if not better.

Deepstar
Dec 13, 2012, 5:38 PM
Lets see what has the Katz group all excited! c'mon King show us something!

I wonder if there actually is a conceptual design, or is it a case of Laforge simply pointing out that Calgary will be getting a new arena, and whatever the design or size of arena, it will be competing for some events.

freeweed
Dec 13, 2012, 6:42 PM
I wonder if there actually is a conceptual design, or is it a case of Laforge simply pointing out that Calgary will be getting a new arena, and whatever the design or size of arena, it will be competing for some events.

Most likely the latter. I can't see why the Flames would be sharing details with the Oilers about the new arena, but who knows. Perhaps the NHL is a bit more incestuous than even I give it credit for.

artvandelay
Dec 13, 2012, 9:45 PM
Most likely the latter. I can't see why the Flames would be sharing details with the Oilers about the new arena, but who knows. Perhaps the NHL is a bit more incestuous than even I give it credit for.

Incestuous? :haha: The Flames and Oilers are each members of a 30 party joint venture, off-ice cooperation is quite obviously in the best interest of all teams, even rivals like Calgary and Edmonton. One would assume that the they would compare notes on new arenas at the very least, they are trying to accomplish the same thing in an almost identical political environment.

artvandelay
Dec 13, 2012, 10:10 PM
Anyways, the speculation on CP is that Laforge may have been hinting at the rumoured LA Live style multisport complex. I'm not so sure, but it would be nice.

I also don't understand why many people are so set against public money going towards sporting facilities. If the Flames were raking in massive profits and generating enough cash-flow to finance an arena on their own I might understand, but they are not. The Flames (and Stamps) owners did not invest in a pro sports team make money, they are in it to do something good for the community and hopefully break even. We spend public money on other cultural facilities such as performing halls and galleries without a great deal of controversy, why not arenas and stadiums? The Flames and Stamps not only provide another entertainment option for Calgarians, but they foster civic pride and public participation in athletics. Not to mention that additional concerts and conferences that could be attracted. These are all elements that work towards creating a better and more liveable city.

SHOFEAR
Dec 13, 2012, 10:17 PM
[QUOTE=Spring2008;5935563]Oh boy. Wouldn't that be funny if after 6-7 years of delays while constantly hearing the same old story of how desperately Edmonton needs this downtown arena to attract investment into the core etc, and with the arena project in Calgary totally being on the back-burner, that Calgary be the city that actually goes ahead and builds a new one.

[QUOTE]

I think it's safe to say the the Flamers are just waiting for Edmonton and the Oilers to finalize funding. It would be a safe bet to say the the funding model Edmonton uses will be the same as Calgary.

Policy Wonk
Dec 13, 2012, 10:23 PM
The only arrangement I would favour would be a sweetheart deal on a wasteland site and I wouldn't include the west village creosote site in that.

But practically speaking I really don't care if the Flames back-up and move to Alabama.

You Need A Thneed
Dec 13, 2012, 10:33 PM
I think it's safe to say the the Flamers are just waiting for Edmonton and the Oilers to finalize funding. It would be a safe bet to say the the funding model Edmonton uses will be the same as Calgary.

The Oilers already have way more money out of the city of Edmonton than the Flames are going to get out of the City of Calgary.

You Need A Thneed
Dec 13, 2012, 10:40 PM
Anyways, the speculation on CP is that Laforge may have been hinting at the rumoured LA Live style multisport complex. I'm not so sure, but it would be nice.

I also don't understand why many people are so set against public money going towards sporting facilities. If the Flames were raking in massive profits and generating enough cash-flow to finance an arena on their own I might understand, but they are not. The Flames (and Stamps) owners did not invest in a pro sports team make money, they are in it to do something good for the community and hopefully break even. We spend public money on other cultural facilities such as performing halls and galleries without a great deal of controversy, why not arenas and stadiums? The Flames and Stamps not only provide another entertainment option for Calgarians, but they foster civic pride and public participation in athletics. Not to mention that additional concerts and conferences that could be attracted. These are all elements that work towards creating a better and more liveable city.

The problem is that with an arena, you are putting public money to fund private enterprise. If the city funds some of a new arena, then the city should receive a DIRECT share of the profit from the building.

The problem is that the Saddledome already provides the benefits to the city that a new arena would.

If the business of arena building is so profitable, surely private enterprise can build it on its own.

93JC
Dec 13, 2012, 11:01 PM
I also don't understand why many people are so set against public money going towards sporting facilities. If the Flames were raking in massive profits and generating enough cash-flow to finance an arena on their own I might understand, but they are not. The Flames (and Stamps) owners did not invest in a pro sports team make money, they are in it to do something good for the community and hopefully break even. We spend public money on other cultural facilities such as performing halls and galleries without a great deal of controversy, why not arenas and stadiums? The Flames and Stamps not only provide another entertainment option for Calgarians, but they foster civic pride and public participation in athletics. Not to mention that additional concerts and conferences that could be attracted. These are all elements that work towards creating a better and more liveable city.

People are opposed to spending money on an NHL arena because they don't buy into the rhetoric that a pro sports franchise is a beacon of civic pride and spurs public participation in athletics, nor that the owners are solely in it to "do something for the community" and "hope to break even".

The Calgary Philharmonic is a non-profit organization. They are quite happy to play in the facility they have. The Calgary Flames Hockey Club is a private, for-profit enterprise that makes millions of dollar in profits every season. They are not happy with the facility they play in, even though it's about the same age as the Jack Singer Concert Hall. They want a new arena not because the one they have now, the one we already built for them mind you, is falling apart; they want a new one because they want to make even more money than they do now.


I don't think anyone is really opposed in principle to a new arena. What they are opposed to is the dissonance between who pays for the bulk of construction and maintenance and who gets most of the operating income after it's built. What the Oilers want is for the City of Edmonton to bear the majority of the construction and maintenance costs while they keep almost all of the operating income. The Flames undoubtedly want the same: it would make them the most money. Making the most money possible is good business.

artvandelay
Dec 13, 2012, 11:03 PM
The problem is that with an arena, you are putting public money to fund private enterprise. If the city funds some of a new arena, then the city should receive a DIRECT share of the profit from the building.

The problem is that the Saddledome already provides the benefits to the city that a new arena would.

If the business of arena building is so profitable, surely private enterprise can build it on its own.

The point I was making is that sports ownership should be treated more along the lines of a non-profit than private enterprise. Many people seem to have this erroneous impression that teams are wildly profitable organizations with fat cat ownership. In the case of the Flames, I believe that they do not operate with the goal of profit maximization but aim to provide maximum benefit to the community without losing money.

Who said that arena building is profitable? It's quite obviously not except in rare cases. If arenas could provide a decent rate of return to investors then you would see them popping up across North America. Here in Alberta, none of our existing stadiums or arenas would be here today without public investment.

MalcolmTucker
Dec 13, 2012, 11:04 PM
I wonder what the current subsidy works out to for the Saddledome.

93JC
Dec 13, 2012, 11:09 PM
Ah yes, the non-profit group that's currently locking out its employees so that it can increase its share of over three billion dollars worth of annual revenue... :haha:

You Need A Thneed
Dec 13, 2012, 11:20 PM
The point I was making is that sports ownership should be treated more along the lines of a non-profit than private enterprise. Many people seem to have this erroneous impression that teams are wildly profitable organizations with fat cat ownership. In the case of the Flames, I believe that they do not operate with the goal of profit maximization but aim to provide maximum benefit to the community without losing money.

Who said that arena building is profitable? It's quite obviously not except in rare cases. If arenas could provide a decent rate of return to investors then you would see them popping up across North America. Here in Alberta, none of our existing stadiums or arenas would be here today without public investment.

What benefit is there to the city in a new arena that doesn't already exist with the arena we have? Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to attract 1 or 2 more concerts a year certainly doesn't make sense.

Also, the money fans spend on entertainment stays roughly the same either way. Essentially, the people of the city of Calgary would be paying money to the owners of the Flames, which is a for profit organization.

I could see the argument being more valid if you were talking about building an arena where you didn't already have one, though even then, its more for civic pride than economic reasons. Paying hundreds of millions for civic pride probably isn't a good deal either - the money would go much further being spent on other things that would increase civic pride.

93JC
Dec 13, 2012, 11:25 PM
I wonder what the current subsidy works out to for the Saddledome.

It's complicated, and it's a sweetheart deal. The Saddledome is nominally owned by the City of Calgary. The Calgary Exhibition & Stampede lease the facility from the City for $1/year. They pay no property taxes. The building is 'governed' by the Saddledome Foundation, a non-profit board made of people from the City, Province, Stampede, CODA and Hockey Canada, on behalf of the City.

The Stampede used to operate the facility on behalf of the Saddledome Foundation. They (Stampede) received a portion of the ticket revenue from the Flames and most of the concessions and parking revenue. In 1994 the Flames came to an agreement with the Stampede and the City to "buy out" the Stampede's operating 'contract' for $20 million. A portion of the building's revenue, usually $1-1.5 million per year, is donated back to the Saddledome Foundation to be doled out to amateur sports organizations.

The Flames now shoulder the burden of paying for the upkeep of the building. They pay for maintenance to the building systems (e.g. the ice plant), they pay the power, gas & water bills. (Up to a point, anyway. In the past the agreement was modified such that the first $1.3 million of annual operating costs would be paid for by the City.) They pay to maintain a marketing and ticket office staff to bring in other events to the arena.

While the Flames now have to pay for the ongoing operation of the building they also get ALL of the profits from the facility. Profits from EVERY event in the building goes back to the Flames; not a cent goes to the City nor the Stampede. Hitmen games, Roughnecks games, concerts, trade shows, monster trucks, rodeos: every single ticket, hot dog and heroin beer makes the Flames a profit.

5seconds
Jan 4, 2013, 1:59 AM
Wildrose is suggesting a new lottery funding model for new arenas in Calgary and Edmonton:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Wildrose+proposes+lottery+game+fund+arenas+Calgary+Edmonton/7771857/story.html

Sounds interesting, though I hope it wouldn't dent existing lottery/charity revenue.

93JC
Jan 4, 2013, 3:04 AM
Still corporate welfare. Money goes to the municipal government, who are then supposed to hand it over to the hockey club to build the arena.

The Keno revenue would be generated from sports fans in sports bars and would flow to the municipalities that would own the arenas — not the hockey teams, Smith said.

Ha ha, no. Not gonna happen. The teams want the arenas. They don't just want new buildings, they want new buildings which THEY run and THEY make all the money off of.

If it's such a great idea the Flames and Oilers should just get the appropriate licence and run their own keno and other such games.