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

Riise
Apr 10, 2014, 5:30 PM
Same could be said about the West Village (Sunalta)area which is closer to the core.

True but I'm pointing out the benefits of an Athlete's Village in Westbrook not the West Village. In a different post earlier, I was talking about a few of the benefits of putting the arena in the West Village.

bt04ku
Apr 10, 2014, 5:42 PM
Wouldn't an arena in the West Village basically be on the doorsteps of Sunalata Station?


It would be, but the NW-S line doesn't go to Sunalta which makes it less convenient for them, it's easier to walk the extra 2-300m than transfer onto another train downtown with everybody else, the trains are packed enough as it is.

A Vic Park location isn't very far from either line (making it more convenient than Stampede Station is for people) and would be on the doorstep of a future line to boot.

*Stardust*
Apr 10, 2014, 6:08 PM
How about this idea...

Tear down the Big Four, then build the new arena in that spot. Then have the LRT go under the arena. Having a stop underground. Better than getting off of Vic park station and walking forever on the +15 to the Dome. It would also be steps away from 17th ave. eventually it would be nice to have a connection from the grounds/arena to 17th ave.

The Fisher Account
Apr 10, 2014, 6:18 PM
How about this idea...

Tear down the Big Four, then build the new arena in that spot. Then have the LRT go under the arena. Having a stop underground. Better than getting off of Vic park station and walking forever on the +15 to the Dome. It would also be steps away from 17th ave. eventually it would be nice to have a connection from the grounds/arena to 17th ave.

Easy answer - because the Stampede owns the land and all the parking.

If you were a Flames owner tasked with building a half a billion dollar arena, would you want to put it in a place where you make no money on all the vehicles coming to your brand new arena?

It's all about maximizing revenue. Which is why I don't think this can possibly be built on or near the Grounds.

tdurden5573
Apr 10, 2014, 6:40 PM
^^^ Good point about the Stampede owned land. Ideally the stadium would replace the big 4, but I also dont see that happening. King said he was committed to an 'inner city' stadium, but word on the street is the flames have been looking at Max Bell and as far away as Cross Iron.

It would be a shame for it to not be connected directly to the ctrain line. Its the Saddledome has been such and iconic landmark of the city, would be a loss if the stadium wasn't in the core.

After going to games in Vancouver, Toronto, LA and Pittsburgh (inner city stadiums) vs. Phoenix, Anaheim, or Ottawa - there is no comparison to the vibe the inner city stadiums provide to the city.

Policy Wonk
Apr 10, 2014, 6:49 PM
Vancouver has a train between the city and Whistler?

They do... but it takes longer than driving, it's a tourist attraction.

Riise
Apr 10, 2014, 7:14 PM
It would be, but the NW-S line doesn't go to Sunalta which makes it less convenient for them, it's easier to walk the extra 2-300m than transfer onto another train downtown with everybody else, the trains are packed enough as it is. A Vic Park location isn't very far from either line (making it more convenient than Stampede Station is for people) and would be on the doorstep of a future line to boot.

Both the Saddledome and McMahon are currently serviced by only one line and it seems to work. In regards to the transfer, waiting on a platform is infinitely better than walking even a short distance. Also, being grade-separated Sunalta is better equipped to handle the mass disembarking during events.

freeweed
Apr 10, 2014, 9:40 PM
You have to remember the Olympics are a game of one-up-manship, Sochi had a train all future bids will now need trains that are faster and better. People aren't going to sit on a bus for 1-2hrs to get to the mountains (sure it was great in '88, attention spans are far shorter now). People aren't going to want to commit to a full day in the mountains, get it down to a 30 min train trip people can go see a alpine event in the morning and a speed skating or hockey event in the afternoon and 1.5hr bus ride doesn't allow that in the same way.

....

Sochi also nearly bankrupted the Russian government, a government which immediately after the games began fostering civil war in its neighbours. Point is, there is zero evidence nor precedent for this "everything must be like the last Olympics, and moreso!". The suggestion is, frankly, nonsensical.

And out of the thousands, millions (?) of people who actually were spectators at the Sochi games... exactly how many do you think are going to come to Calgary to compare? The overwhelming majority will be Calgarians, who are already used to driving to the mountains, followed by Albertans, same, followed by Canadians who probably drove 1000+km to get here in the first place. The hardcore Olympic tourist is already well aware that each venue offers a completely different experience, and if you think a few thousand diehards are suddenly going to stop going to the Olympics just because we don't have a billion dollar train built for a 3 week event....

There is literally no indication that anyone would want nor expect a train to the mountains for a successful games, other than "Russia did it!". Yeah, they did a whole lot of things we're not gonna repeat.

Also... the laws of physics prevent every single Olympics from hereafter having a "faster, better train" every single time. People seem to have the impression that the "bigger, better!" mantra can keep going indefinitely, but the laws of economy and reality itself will eventually put a stop to that, by definition. I mean unless we'll someday have an Olympics with 50,000 events that takes 18 months to complete.

Anyway, we'll be just fine without a train. The US would, by that logic, never ever hold a games again. Nor would any really mountainous areas, not if you want any speed out of it.

Fuzz
Apr 10, 2014, 11:04 PM
Has the stance of Parks Canada changed? They didn't allow the Olympics in Lake Louise last time, I can't imagine they would now, though maybe they could use the money...

Last I heard Nakiska's downhill wasn't up to par for world cup standards, so they would need to figure something out. I think it was too short.

Standards have changed though, I remember Canmore's Athlete's Village was just a bunch of ATCO trailers, can't imagine that'd fly now.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 10, 2014, 11:50 PM
There is a plan for nakiska to trade some land near the valley bottom for some land near the top, to requalify for world cup status I believe.

VIce
Apr 11, 2014, 12:01 AM
Has the stance of Parks Canada changed? They didn't allow the Olympics in Lake Louise last time, I can't imagine they would now, though maybe they could use the money...

Last I heard Nakiska's downhill wasn't up to par for world cup standards, so they would need to figure something out. I think it was too short.

Standards have changed though, I remember Canmore's Athlete's Village was just a bunch of ATCO trailers, can't imagine that'd fly now.

ATCO trailers have changed too, though :P

http://www.atcosl.com/en-ca/encaKeyMessages/MEG-Winner.jpg

bt04ku
Apr 11, 2014, 2:57 AM
Both the Saddledome and McMahon are currently serviced by only one line and it seems to work. In regards to the transfer, waiting on a platform is infinitely better than walking even a short distance. Also, being grade-separated Sunalta is better equipped to handle the mass disembarking during events.

There's what works now, and what would be ideal. The West Village has less service than what is currently available, and waiting on a platform isn't great when you have a full train of people waiting to get onto another full train of people.

Full Mountain
Apr 11, 2014, 2:23 PM
....

Sochi also nearly bankrupted the Russian government, a government which immediately after the games began fostering civil war in its neighbours. Point is, there is zero evidence nor precedent for this "everything must be like the last Olympics, and moreso!". The suggestion is, frankly, nonsensical.

And out of the thousands, millions (?) of people who actually were spectators at the Sochi games... exactly how many do you think are going to come to Calgary to compare? The overwhelming majority will be Calgarians, who are already used to driving to the mountains, followed by Albertans, same, followed by Canadians who probably drove 1000+km to get here in the first place. The hardcore Olympic tourist is already well aware that each venue offers a completely different experience, and if you think a few thousand diehards are suddenly going to stop going to the Olympics just because we don't have a billion dollar train built for a 3 week event....

There is literally no indication that anyone would want nor expect a train to the mountains for a successful games, other than "Russia did it!". Yeah, they did a whole lot of things we're not gonna repeat.

Also... the laws of physics prevent every single Olympics from hereafter having a "faster, better train" every single time. People seem to have the impression that the "bigger, better!" mantra can keep going indefinitely, but the laws of economy and reality itself will eventually put a stop to that, by definition. I mean unless we'll someday have an Olympics with 50,000 events that takes 18 months to complete.

Anyway, we'll be just fine without a train. The US would, by that logic, never ever hold a games again. Nor would any really mountainous areas, not if you want any speed out of it.

Absolutely it will, but at the same time, every games have strived to be better than the last.

Second thought, are the Olympics still worth the investment? i.e. does the tourist and venue value exceed the investment? And how long does it take to make that happen? If Calgary had to put up $5-$10B to host the games (venues, housing, transportation projects, etc.) are we going to see $20-$30+B in economic returns within 10 years? Keep in mind the total cost for '88 was ~$900M (~$1.7B in today's dollars).

Keep in mind this is the city that has spent more time debating $12M in cycle tracks than the federal government has spent debating the elections act (C-23), something that will fundamentally change how elections occur going forward.

Riise
Apr 11, 2014, 2:45 PM
There's what works now, and what would be ideal. The West Village has less service than what is currently available, and waiting on a platform isn't great when you have a full train of people waiting to get onto another full train of people.

Service levels can be modified according to demand and I still hold that standing and waiting is better than being forced to make a walking transfer.

Fuzz
Apr 11, 2014, 2:58 PM
Service levels can be modified according to demand and I still hold that standing and waiting is better than being forced to make a walking transfer.

I don't think the community would be all that happy to have a stadium and an arena plopped down there, given the drunkenness and loud concerts and traffic nightmares that go with these venues. I'm not sure there is enough space either, given the need for parking.

freeweed
Apr 11, 2014, 3:55 PM
Second thought, are the Olympics still worth the investment? i.e. does the tourist and venue value exceed the investment? And how long does it take to make that happen? If Calgary had to put up $5-$10B to host the games (venues, housing, transportation projects, etc.) are we going to see $20-$30+B in economic returns within 10 years? Keep in mind the total cost for '88 was ~$900M (~$1.7B in today's dollars).

This one I ain't gonna bet on. From my perspective, absolutely no sporting event or facility in the history of mankind has ever "paid back the investment". However, neither has any museum, art gallery, or concert hall. Yet we invest billions into those each year. Did the Peace Bridge show a fiscal return for Calgary? Sometimes it ain't just about "how much money will this make us?".

I also think that very soon, we're going to see a "smaller" Olympics. Where a city convinces the powers-that-be that this ever-escalating cost is unsustainable. Eventually cities will be literally bankrupting themselves to host these games. I think 15-20 years from now will be right around the time we start scaling back substantially on all of the excess.

The bigger problem in Calgary is, how are we gonna bus out all the homeless people to Vancouver, with such leftist hippies as Nenshi in charge? :P

Chadillaccc
Apr 11, 2014, 4:20 PM
Eventually bankrupting themselves? Cough - Sochi - cough. Russia is going to be paying back that blunder for decades, possibly generations $52 billion in 2013 dollars. That is fucking crazy... but since it's Putin's Russia, it's also awesome and hillarious :)

Full Mountain
Apr 11, 2014, 4:27 PM
This one I ain't gonna bet on. From my perspective, absolutely no sporting event or facility in the history of mankind has ever "paid back the investment". However, neither has any museum, art gallery, or concert hall. Yet we invest billions into those each year. Did the Peace Bridge show a fiscal return for Calgary? Sometimes it ain't just about "how much money will this make us?".

True, wonder when that will become an accepted societal norm? I for one hope we make it there soon. That said we can't go spending money on items just so we have them if they have don't have benefits to the city in the future, i.e. is spending money on a new rink (to bring this back on topic) going to have a long term benefit to Calgary, that wouldn't exist with the Saddledome?

I also think that very soon, we're going to see a "smaller" Olympics. Where a city convinces the powers-that-be that this ever-escalating cost is unsustainable. Eventually cities will be literally bankrupting themselves to host these games. I think 15-20 years from now will be right around the time we start scaling back substantially on all of the excess.

The bigger problem in Calgary is, how are we gonna bus out all the homeless people to Vancouver, with such leftist hippies as Nenshi in charge? :P

I agree, at some point the constant escalation will have to stop, but when will rational sense over rule national pride and ego?

IMO the 5-10B would be far better spent housing our homeless and vulnerable population, along with significant increases in efficiency of our transportation system.

MichaelS
Apr 11, 2014, 6:30 PM
This one I ain't gonna bet on. From my perspective, absolutely no sporting event or facility in the history of mankind has ever "paid back the investment". However, neither has any museum, art gallery, or concert hall. Yet we invest billions into those each year. Did the Peace Bridge show a fiscal return for Calgary? Sometimes it ain't just about "how much money will this make us?".

Where is the billions in investment for museums, art galleries and concert halls taking place? I suppose we are getting the new RAM and just got a new Art Gallery in Edmonton, but what is their total costs? Is it as high as the amount Edmonton is investing in their new arena? And we haven't seen anything in Calgary. As well, I don't think museums and art galleries can be considered the same as sports venues, as they are usually not for profits with the goal of educating the public. If we subsidize an arena, why not subsidize a movie theater?

I also think that very soon, we're going to see a "smaller" Olympics. Where a city convinces the powers-that-be that this ever-escalating cost is unsustainable. Eventually cities will be literally bankrupting themselves to host these games. I think 15-20 years from now will be right around the time we start scaling back substantially on all of the excess.


I think we are already starting to see this. Didn't Rome pull out of the 2020 bid because the city agreed it simply couldn't afford to host the games?

Riise
Apr 11, 2014, 7:01 PM
I don't think the community would be all that happy to have a stadium and an arena plopped down there, given the drunkenness and loud concerts and traffic nightmares that go with these venues. I'm not sure there is enough space either, given the need for parking.

I don't believe Sunalta would have much of a say as the arena would not be going in their community and the Flames Organization would only consult with the out of courtesy. Also, the Flames Organization would have to provide parking underground in Victoria Park as permanent new surface parking lots are not allowed in Beltline. Consequently, the Flames Organization would have to pay the same amount to reduce parking concerns in Sunalta as they would have to pay to provide new lots in Beltline.

Fuzz
Apr 11, 2014, 8:47 PM
I don't believe Sunalta would have much of a say as the arena would not be going in their community and the Flames Organization would only consult with the out of courtesy. Also, the Flames Organization would have to provide parking underground in Victoria Park as permanent new surface parking lots are not allowed in Beltline. Consequently, the Flames Organization would have to pay the same amount to reduce parking concerns in Sunalta as they would have to pay to provide new lots in Beltline.
...Ignore me, for some reason I thought we were talking about Westbrook... :shrug:

Spring2008
Apr 12, 2014, 4:37 PM
True but I'm pointing out the benefits of an Athlete's Village in Westbrook not the West Village. In a different post earlier, I was talking about a few of the benefits of putting the arena in the West Village.

Oh that's an interesting idea. Could be a way to get both TOD's going at the same time. Having an athletes village up on Westbrook would also be a sure way to get a lot of epic skyline footage lol

Spring2008
Apr 13, 2014, 10:36 PM
So if the arena and stadium are getting built close to the stampede grounds, I'm assuming Railtown, 20 acre proposal on the eastern edge of the Beltline is dead?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bk-U1JxCcAAu-ay.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bk-U1JxCcAAu-ay.png

TallBob
Apr 14, 2014, 6:17 AM
^ I hope not! ^

mersar
Apr 14, 2014, 4:47 PM
So if the arena and stadium are getting built close to the stampede grounds, I'm assuming Railtown, 20 acre proposal on the eastern edge of the Beltline is dead?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bk-U1JxCcAAu-ay.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bk-U1JxCcAAu-ay.png

In its previous iteration quite likely. Remington never acquired the bus barn site (its still city property) and the only way they get it is to build a replacement facility for the city, which is a bit of a contentious issue due to sole sourcing and the like.

Luk_o
Apr 15, 2014, 4:34 AM
Not the arena, but Stadium upgrades at McMahon announced at the fan forum this evening. The massive screen is long over due.
http://stampeders.com/

Doug_Cgy
Jun 5, 2014, 8:53 PM
Brian Burke says Saddledome is ‘embarrassing,’ wants new arena


http://globalnews.ca/news/1376991/brian-burke-says-saddledome-is-embarrassing-wants-new-arena/

I'm inclined to agree with him...

Fuzz
Jun 5, 2014, 9:08 PM
As long as I'm not paying for it, have at 'er.

"It's not just what a hockey team gets and what it adds for a hockey team. It's what it does to a downtown core and we need a new building in Calgary. There's absolutely no reason we should watch a new building going up in Edmonton and we've got to play in a 1988 building here."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/flames-exec-brian-burke-makes-pitch-for-new-arena-1.2666469

Wow, entitled much? Basically "I want one too!"

red_179
Jun 5, 2014, 10:07 PM
I wouldn't call it entitlement, I would call it reality. The fact is the only arenas older than the Saddledome in the NHL are Madison Square Garden (which just did a billion dollar renovation), Joe Louis Arena (Red Wings have a new $650 million arena planned), Rexall Centre (Edmonton New Arena in progress) and Nassau Colosseum (Islanders are moving to Barclays Centre for the 2015 season). So basically the Flames will be playing in the worst and most dated facility in the league within a few years.

tomthumb2
Jun 5, 2014, 10:07 PM
Gotta love Burkie - agree 110%! (although McMahon is a thousand times more embarrassing)

MichaelS
Jun 5, 2014, 10:36 PM
I wouldn't call it entitlement, I would call it reality. The fact is the only arenas older than the Saddledome in the NHL are Madison Square Garden (which just did a billion dollar renovation), Joe Louis Arena (Red Wings have a new $650 million arena planned), Rexall Centre (Edmonton New Arena in progress) and Nassau Colosseum (Islanders are moving to Barclays Centre for the 2015 season). So basically the Flames will be playing in the worst and most dated facility in the league within a few years.

What is not a reality though is any claims that this arena will "revitalize" our downtown. That is happening already, without the need for a tax payer subsidy to the Flames of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Calgarian
Jun 5, 2014, 10:46 PM
I would say embarrassing is a bit of a stretch, but we do need a new barn.

MasterG
Jun 5, 2014, 10:51 PM
What is not a reality though is any claims that this arena will "revitalize" our downtown. That is happening already, without the need for a tax payer subsidy to the Flames of hundreds of millions of dollars.

With the right design we may be able to replace a few parking lots with a shiny new stadium in Vic Park. Perhaps even get pedestrian infrastructure, bigger sidewalks and tree-lined streets.

Not bad for $500 million.

I am actually okay with some subsidy, seems like there is no way to really avoid it as all other cities do it. Just not at the expense of any of our higher priority infrastructure projects and a well structured cost / revenue sharing agreement with the Flames ownership to minimize the public exposure to a costly project.

But it better be in the same area. All that transit infrastructure wasn't free and they should use it. A block or two north of the Saddledome gets you into very comfortable walking distance to Centre Street station. Opens up both lines without a transfer to the NE. Also on the SE LRT route as well. That's the only place I would risk it a new stadium.

Luk_o
Jun 5, 2014, 11:03 PM
Agreed, the 'Dome isn't embarrassing. Nassau is embarrassing, the dome is just dated. Really hoping for either Big4 or Greyhound.

*Stardust*
Jun 5, 2014, 11:07 PM
Private money only please!
I love the idea of north of the saddle dome, but isn't that where The orchard is going to be?

MasterG
Jun 5, 2014, 11:16 PM
Private money only please!
I love the idea of north of the saddle dome, but isn't that where The orchard is going to be?

Put it in the lot a block north of there along the CPR tracks. I think it's owned for a future train station / HSR but the province will never be progressive enough to consider that seriously so might as well give a portion up to a new stadium.

Calgarian
Jun 5, 2014, 11:48 PM
Private money only please!
I love the idea of north of the saddle dome, but isn't that where The orchard is going to be?

After all the uproar about taxes, public art, the Peace Bridge etc, you can bet not one cent of municipal money will go to this arena, it would be political suicide for every member of council who voted for it.

Ramsayfarian
Jun 6, 2014, 12:03 AM
Agreed, the 'Dome isn't embarrassing. Nassau is embarrassing, the dome is just dated. Really hoping for either Big4 or Greyhound.

And it isn't broken either. Last time I checked the seats and ice plant still worked. So we miss a few concerts every year. I can live that. Besides, most of the acts that can't play here because of the Saddledome suck. Plus there' nothing more fun that a rock'n'roll road trip even if it is just to the Chuck.

freeweed
Jun 6, 2014, 12:37 AM
Agreed, the 'Dome isn't embarrassing. Nassau is embarrassing, the dome is just dated.

No shit. Anyone who's been to Nassau understands this. I'd almost even put Rexall in the "embarrassing" category, but the Saddledome? It's just a bit old. Barely 30 years at that.

freeweed
Jun 6, 2014, 12:40 AM
After all the uproar about taxes, public art, the Peace Bridge etc, you can bet not one cent of municipal money will go to this arena, it would be political suicide for every member of council who voted for it.

Doubtful. Beyond the Rick Bells of the world, who are basically MEMEMEMEMEMEME MYMONEY STOPTAKINGMYTAXDOLLARS about everything, I'd say the intersection between people complaining about public art/bridges and those who would complain about public money in a new arena is pretty small.

I mean, unless we spend another $100m to get some fancy European architect to design something actually nice to look at instead of just a generic brick box. THAT will get both camps united.

Wooster
Jun 6, 2014, 12:43 AM
Easy solution for the Flames - build a new one. Nothing financial stopping them - their owners are billionaires.

The wealthiest of the 6 owners by himself could bankroll the arena on just the increase in his net worth from 2013-14 (~$400m). Edit: actually 2012-13

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/rich-100-the-full-2014-ranking/

srperrycgy
Jun 6, 2014, 12:53 AM
Easy solution for the Flames - build a new one. Nothing financial stopping them - their owners are billionaires.

The wealthiest of the 6 owners by himself could bankroll the arena on just the increase in his net worth from 2013-14 (~$400m).

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/rich-100-the-full-2014-ranking/

:previous:

Thanks for finding this, Wooster and I fully agree. There are many City projects that are a higher priority for public funding than an arena.

O-tacular
Jun 6, 2014, 3:31 AM
Easy solution for the Flames - build a new one. Nothing financial stopping them - their owners are billionaires.

The wealthiest of the 6 owners by himself could bankroll the arena on just the increase in his net worth from 2013-14 (~$400m). Edit: actually 2012-13

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/rich-100-the-full-2014-ranking/

I know the whole 1% thing has gotten kind of tired, but MAN! The audacity it takes to beg for money from the masses to bankroll your own pet project while you could basically buy the damn thing yourself without blinking seems so sleazy. Then again, I guess there's a reason why Scrooge was rich.

Ramsayfarian
Jun 6, 2014, 4:23 AM
I know the whole 1% thing has gotten kind of tired, but MAN! The audacity it takes to beg for money from the masses to bankroll your own pet project while you could basically buy the damn thing yourself without blinking seems so sleazy. Then again, I guess there's a reason why Scrooge was rich.

Scrooge became rich because he was frugal and paid his employees squat. It wasn't because he fleeced the taxpayers.

*Stardust*
Jun 6, 2014, 4:35 AM
Put it in the lot a block north of there along the CPR tracks. I think it's owned for a future train station / HSR but the province will never be progressive enough to consider that seriously so might as well give a portion up to a new stadium.

Thats a very narrow lot for an arena thats suppose to be larger than the saddledome. how would that work?

tdurden5573
Jun 6, 2014, 5:41 AM
What is not a reality though is any claims that this arena will "revitalize" our downtown. That is happening already, without the need for a tax payer subsidy to the Flames of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Stadiums like Staples Center in LA are models for how to revitalize an area with an arena. For those who havent been, they built an attached entertainment district to staples center downtown. It use to be a rundown sketchy area, now its a huge tourist draw. When I was working in LA we would have all our company parties down in the area next to the stadium and hit up a kings or clippers game after.

If done right, a stadium can be a huge draw for economic activity in the area. Currently people hit up bars in the burbs and take buses down to the stadium.

Rogers Center in Toronto and GM Place (I know its been renamed) in Vancouver are two excellent examples in Canada of successfully integrated downtown arenas.

If Calgary is serious about having an NHL team, we need a new stadium / entertainment district.

freeweed
Jun 6, 2014, 1:44 PM
While you're right about LA, Calgary doesn't have any part of the city that "needs revitalizing" in the same way. That argument doesn't really stand up here.

What people do need to understand, however, is that sports and other arena events are an integral part of our cultural fabric. The Hitmen and Roughnecks aren't exactly multi-millionaires, and live music isn't always run by billionaires. The problem is that people see Jarome Iginla making $7m a year and think "why should I pay to subsidize millionaires???" They don't realize that public money goes to "subsidize" wealthy patrons of the arts all the time. People seriously believe that everyone involved in our music centre is a staving artist. That things like ballet, opera, art galleries and symphonies have no real money connected to them. Etc.

But this is the unfortunate reality of the modern NHL arena situation. With the Flames so closely identified with the Saddledome, that's all people see. Absolutely nothing has changed since 1988 in terms of use of the building - if anything it has several more amateur events every month - and back then people had no problem with public funding. Now that it's "the rich Calgary Flames' home" somehow things seem different.

MichaelS
Jun 6, 2014, 3:07 PM
With the right design we may be able to replace a few parking lots with a shiny new stadium in Vic Park. Perhaps even get pedestrian infrastructure, bigger sidewalks and tree-lined streets.

Not bad for $500 million.

I think half a billion dollars is a ridiculous price for a couple of blocks of sidewalks (I know, hyperbole, but that is essentially what you are describing to me). Besides, what are the parking lots in Victoria Park that don't have current proposals by private developers on them? Will they still be sitting as parking lots in 5-10 years, or at the current pace of our development, will we get shiny new developments (not an arena) plus the sidewalks you mentioned without any subsidy?

Stadiums like Staples Center in LA are models for how to revitalize an area with an arena. For those who havent been, they built an attached entertainment district to staples center downtown. It use to be a rundown sketchy area, now its a huge tourist draw. When I was working in LA we would have all our company parties down in the area next to the stadium and hit up a kings or clippers game after.

If done right, a stadium can be a huge draw for economic activity in the area. Currently people hit up bars in the burbs and take buses down to the stadium.

Rogers Center in Toronto and GM Place (I know its been renamed) in Vancouver are two excellent examples in Canada of successfully integrated downtown arenas.

If Calgary is serious about having an NHL team, we need a new stadium / entertainment district.

Seems to me like the easiest way to achieve this is turn the current Stampede Trail into an entertainment district. That is the easy part to build. If we create a new arena, we also need to create the entertainment district. We are more than halfway there already, let's just put a few restaurants and bars at the north end of the Stampede grounds.

O-tacular
Jun 6, 2014, 3:13 PM
While you're right about LA, Calgary doesn't have any part of the city that "needs revitalizing" in the same way. That argument doesn't really stand up here.

What people do need to understand, however, is that sports and other arena events are an integral part of our cultural fabric. The Hitmen and Roughnecks aren't exactly multi-millionaires, and live music isn't always run by billionaires. The problem is that people see Jarome Iginla making $7m a year and think "why should I pay to subsidize millionaires???" They don't realize that public money goes to "subsidize" wealthy patrons of the arts all the time. People seriously believe that everyone involved in our music centre is a staving artist. That things like ballet, opera, art galleries and symphonies have no real money connected to them. Etc.

But this is the unfortunate reality of the modern NHL arena situation. With the Flames so closely identified with the Saddledome, that's all people see. Absolutely nothing has changed since 1988 in terms of use of the building - if anything it has several more amateur events every month - and back then people had no problem with public funding. Now that it's "the rich Calgary Flames' home" somehow things seem different.

No one said Jarome Iginla should pay for the new arena. They said the Billionaire owners who aim to reap the most benefit from it should.

fusili
Jun 6, 2014, 3:21 PM
Yup, we definitely need revitalization of our downtown. It's not like Calgary has the second highest downtown class A office rates in North America, the second most concentrated CBD in terms of percentage of office space, or an absolutely booming residential sector in places like the Beltline. Oh, wait, maybe we do.....

freeweed
Jun 6, 2014, 3:28 PM
No one said Jarome Iginla should pay for the new arena. They said the Billionaire owners who aim to reap the most benefit from it should.

Actually that is precisely what people are talking about. In the years before players made millions, the public was all in favour of subsidizing arenas. It was only after people realized the money that players made that this "I don't want a dime of my money sponsoring millionaires!!!" came about.

If it's solely the owners we're talking about - you don't think the people who run ballet companies, or art galleries, or concert halls are all poor, do you? Billions of public dollars go to pay for facilities where the prime beneficiary is already filthy rich. The only difference is that the performers at these places tend not to be.

Alternatively - would you be OK paying for a new Saddledome if the Flames got sold to me, even if the rest of the finances worked out exactly the same?

freeweed
Jun 6, 2014, 3:30 PM
Yup, we definitely need revitalization of our downtown. It's not like Calgary has the second highest downtown class A office rates in North America, the second most concentrated CBD in terms of percentage of office space, or an absolutely booming residential sector in places like the Beltline. Oh, wait, maybe we do.....

Be very, very careful with your sarcasm. Thinking like this is precisely why so many arenas ended up in the suburbs at one time. "Downtown doesn't need em! I know, we'll build it in the middle of nowhere and surround it with surface parking!".

You're absolutely correct though, don't get me wrong.

RWin
Jun 6, 2014, 3:36 PM
would you be OK paying for a new Saddledome if the Flames got sold to me, even if the rest of the finances worked out exactly the same?

No.







:)

H.E.Pennypacker
Jun 6, 2014, 3:39 PM
Actually that is precisely what people are talking about. In the years before players made millions, the public was all in favour of subsidizing arenas. It was only after people realized the money that players made that this "I don't want a dime of my money sponsoring millionaires!!!" came about.

If it's solely the owners we're talking about - you don't think the people who run ballet companies, or art galleries, or concert halls are all poor, do you? Billions of public dollars go to pay for facilities where the prime beneficiary is already filthy rich. The only difference is that the performers at these places tend not to be.

Alternatively - would you be OK paying for a new Saddledome if the Flames got sold to me, even if the rest of the finances worked out exactly the same?

Either way it's going to cost the public in one form or another - either they pay the cost now for a new facility and have to eat it up and work with the Flames .. OR they have to pay the already rich owners to host said events in a private facility on a case by case basis over the long term

What's more cost effective for the public?

An underlying issue would be the taxable status of the new facility - if it's built completely privately the City could generate some good property tax revenues off of it to help subsidize these events .. Whereas a facility built by the municipality (or funded by) may not pull in the same type of revenue

I'm not quite sure how tax agreements would work between the two parties, so if someone has some more insight to this by all means correct me .. I just see little benefit to the City eating up a large cost of a new facility personally

Full Mountain
Jun 6, 2014, 3:39 PM
While you're right about LA, Calgary doesn't have any part of the city that "needs revitalizing" in the same way. That argument doesn't really stand up here.

What people do need to understand, however, is that sports and other arena events are an integral part of our cultural fabric. The Hitmen and Roughnecks aren't exactly multi-millionaires, and live music isn't always run by billionaires. The problem is that people see Jarome Iginla making $7m a year and think "why should I pay to subsidize millionaires???" They don't realize that public money goes to "subsidize" wealthy patrons of the arts all the time. People seriously believe that everyone involved in our music centre is a staving artist. That things like ballet, opera, art galleries and symphonies have no real money connected to them. Etc.

But this is the unfortunate reality of the modern NHL arena situation. With the Flames so closely identified with the Saddledome, that's all people see. Absolutely nothing has changed since 1988 in terms of use of the building - if anything it has several more amateur events every month - and back then people had no problem with public funding. Now that it's "the rich Calgary Flames' home" somehow things seem different.

Last I checked not many of the people involved in the arts (employees or artists) were paid extravagantly. If the owners of the Flames can afford to pay their employees millions they can pay for their own arena. They have had a virtual free ride for the last 30 years (free building, all the profits into their pockets) they can do right by the community that has supported them for those years and pay their own way.

fusili
Jun 6, 2014, 3:58 PM
Be very, very careful with your sarcasm. Thinking like this is precisely why so many arenas ended up in the suburbs at one time. "Downtown doesn't need em! I know, we'll build it in the middle of nowhere and surround it with surface parking!".

You're absolutely correct though, don't get me wrong.

Fair. That would be the last thing I want.

speedog
Jun 6, 2014, 3:58 PM
Last I checked not many of the people involved in the arts (employees or artists) were paid extravagantly. If the owners of the Flames can afford to pay their employees millions they can pay for their own arena. They have had a virtual free ride for the last 30 years (free building, all the profits into their pockets) they can do right by the community that has supported them for those years and pay their own way.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Calgary Flames organization pay lease costs to the Saddledome Foundation?

As far as doing right by the community, you should delve a bit deeper on that one because the Flames organization does give back to numerous non-profit organizations (both sports and non-sports related) - not huge dollars comparable to what the Flames owners are worth but still monies that these non-profit groups truly appreciate and would find difficult to replace if it wasn't for the Flames organization.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 6, 2014, 4:06 PM
Either way it's going to cost the public in one form or another - either they pay the cost now for a new facility and have to eat it up and work with the Flames .. OR they have to pay the already rich owners to host said events in a private facility on a case by case basis over the long term

What's more cost effective for the public?

An underlying issue would be the taxable status of the new facility - if it's built completely privately the City could generate some good property tax revenues off of it to help subsidize these events .. Whereas a facility built by the municipality (or funded by) may not pull in the same type of revenue

I'm not quite sure how tax agreements would work between the two parties, so if someone has some more insight to this by all means correct me .. I just see little benefit to the City eating up a large cost of a new facility personally
Can the city offer a tax break on its own under the current MGA? I know there was a provision for special legislation to grant tax free status by the province.

The construction of a new arena and how to finance it seems doomed by market failures. Moving the needle with a 30 year property tax break would be reasonable.

Cage
Jun 6, 2014, 4:15 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Calgary Flames organization pay lease costs to the Saddledome Foundation?

As far as doing right by the community, you should delve a bit deeper on that one because the Flames organization does give back to numerous non-profit organizations (both sports and non-sports related) - not huge dollars comparable to what the Flames owners are worth but still monies that these non-profit groups truly appreciate and would find difficult to replace if it wasn't for the Flames organization.

While the Saddledome Foundation receives lease revenue from Calgary Flames, it is very small amount that less than 2 million per annum. Additionally the Calgary Flames pick up all costs associated maintenance and operations of the arena. Also, because of the special nature of the Saddledome Foundation, they do not pay property taxes or any other fees in lieu of property taxes. Even the airport has a payment in lieu of property tax.

As for giving back to the community. A lot of the charity work is done by the Saddledome Foundation, a major portion of the facility naming rights fees are funnelled into charities.

Full Mountain
Jun 6, 2014, 4:17 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Calgary Flames organization pay lease costs to the Saddledome Foundation?

As far as doing right by the community, you should delve a bit deeper on that one because the Flames organization does give back to numerous non-profit organizations (both sports and non-sports related) - not huge dollars comparable to what the Flames owners are worth but still monies that these non-profit groups truly appreciate and would find difficult to replace if it wasn't for the Flames organization.

Remember that tax dollars paid for the arena to be built in the first place....yes they have paid for maintenance, but imagine getting a house for free and saying you paid your part by putting some paint on the walls once every 5 years.

While the Saddledome Foundation receives lease revenue from Calgary Flames, it is very small amount that less than 2 million per annum. Additionally the Calgary Flames pick up all costs associated maintenance and operations of the arena. Also, because of the special nature of the Saddledome Foundation, they do not pay property taxes or any other fees in lieu of property taxes. Even the airport has a payment in lieu of property tax.

As for giving back to the community. A lot of the charity work is done by the Saddledome Foundation, a major portion of the facility naming rights fees are funnelled into charities.

Still seems like they get a good deal.

H.E.Pennypacker
Jun 6, 2014, 4:24 PM
Can the city offer a tax break on its own under the current MGA? I know there was a provision for special legislation to grant tax free status by the province.

The construction of a new arena and how to finance it seems doomed by market failures. Moving the needle with a 30 year property tax break would be reasonable.

I'm not that extensive knowledgeable about those parts of the MGA ... Hard for me to say but if the City could come up with a tax agreement it most certainly would be best for them I think

Would hate to see the City have to fight for it to be taxable every year

speedog
Jun 6, 2014, 4:25 PM
Remember that tax dollars paid for the arena to be built in the first place....yes they have paid for maintenance, but imagine getting a house for free and saying you paid your part by putting some paint on the walls once every 5 years.
Ummm, I was speaking about a lease and you're speaking about something totally different, no?

MasterG
Jun 6, 2014, 4:52 PM
Thats a very narrow lot for an arena thats suppose to be larger than the saddledome. how would that work?

It's not that narrow. The lot north of 10th Ave? That is huge, plus modern stadiums can be more vertical. The only thing you can't fit is a hundred acres of surface parking lots which is a good thing.

There is probably a portion of the structure you could overhang or encapsulate the CPR track if need be. I doubt you would have to though, there may be some interesting design challenges building it future ready for the SELRT that is also slated for that property.

The one thing that must not be allowed to happen is building this anywhere away from transit or anywhere in the middle of no where. There is no redevelopment benefit from a stadium, it really only transfers activity from one area to another (and provides a few tidbits of new sidewalks and something shiny to look at). Building at Max Bell Area (Firestone Park is it called?) would be a disaster and a huge waste of a great stadium.

God forbid they pull a Scotiabank Centre in Ottawa and fire this thing up at CrossIron Mills. That would be one of the worst decisions that the city could ever have happen

H.E.Pennypacker
Jun 6, 2014, 4:59 PM
Along the CPR tracks on the "Railtown" Site would be good except IMO they need to put a couple of pedestrian overpasses across the CPR tracks and 9th Ave to connect it to the EV

Those pedestrian overpasses could connect to an outdoor terrace above grade (maybe with a couple of restaurants) as an amenity space for pedestrians

Just some random thoughts :P

Surrealplaces
Jun 6, 2014, 5:06 PM
That would be about the worst possible scenario. :yuck:



God forbid they pull a Scotiabank Centre in Ottawa and fire this thing up at CrossIron Mills. That would be one of the worst decisions that the city could ever have happen

tomthumb2
Jun 6, 2014, 5:12 PM
The Flames should do themselves a huge favor and just finance this themselves. Who needs moron politicians involved anyway. They would just drag it on forever and inflate the cost. Go it alone, then all the money you make is yours to keep and no can complain about it. Of course its not that simple but it should be.

The Urbanist
Jun 6, 2014, 5:20 PM
Weren't there rumblings of a transit hub being built near the East Village with access to all LRT lines and potential to include a high speed rail link? It would be great to see the arena built over top of this a la Barclays Center in Brooklyn. This would create a fantastic pedestrian experience.

Surrealplaces
Jun 6, 2014, 6:18 PM
Weren't there rumblings of a transit hub being built near the East Village with access to all LRT lines and potential to include a high speed rail link? It would be great to see the arena built over top of this a la Barclays Center in Brooklyn. This would create a fantastic pedestrian experience.

and Oiler fans can hop the high speed train to come down to see the Oiler games...and vice versa for Flames fans :cool:

Ramsayfarian
Jun 6, 2014, 6:27 PM
and Oiler fans can hop the high speed train to come down to see the Oiler games...and vice versa for Flames fans :cool:

That would be awesome but I'm worried that the noise at Oiler's games would scare the crap out of the Calgary fans.

fusili
Jun 6, 2014, 7:35 PM
NorthHill Mall? Firestone site? Greyhound terminal? Westbrook Mall?

Those are the only places I can see as viable outside the Stampede Grounds/Railtown area.

*Stardust*
Jun 6, 2014, 7:48 PM
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.042088,-114.052843,3a,75y,42.88h,78.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEFIvBT7_MKQLX65GlsRQbA!2e0

This is what you guys are talking about right? Yeah I guess it is pretty big :D

There would be enough room for an L.A live style entertainment district as well!

It would be perfect if there was a plan with Calgary Transit to build that train station underground

Okay, screw the stampede grounds and west village. I like this alot better! :tup:

Calgarian
Jun 6, 2014, 8:09 PM
That would be awesome but I'm worried that the noise at Oiler's games would scare the crap out of the Calgary fans.

What noise, all the booing from Oiler fans as they go into year 10 of their rebuild? :haha:

DizzyEdge
Jun 6, 2014, 9:11 PM
NorthHill Mall? Firestone site? Greyhound terminal? Westbrook Mall?

Those are the only places I can see as viable outside the Stampede Grounds/Railtown area.

I'd be into Northhill Mall, although Hounsfield Heights/Briar Hill residents would shit (understandably)

MasterG
Jun 6, 2014, 10:07 PM
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.042088,-114.052843,3a,75y,42.88h,78.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEFIvBT7_MKQLX65GlsRQbA!2e0

This is what you guys are talking about right? Yeah I guess it is pretty big :D

There would be enough room for an L.A live style entertainment district as well!

It would be perfect if there was a plan with Calgary Transit to build that train station underground

Okay, screw the stampede grounds and west village. I like this alot better! :tup:

It's a ~600m walk to either station (City Hall for NW, S or NE trains; Vic Park for NW or S trains). Google says 7-9 minutes. Which in reality is not much farther than the current setup ~400m.

Throw a SELRT stop in the basement or whatever? You'll have one of the most transit accessible spots in the city.

Ramsayfarian
Jun 6, 2014, 10:10 PM
What noise, all the booing from Oiler fans as they go into year 10 of their rebuild? :haha:

These things apparently take time. Just wait, you'll eventually see what I mean.

*Stardust*
Jun 6, 2014, 11:59 PM
It's a ~600m walk to either station (City Hall for NW, S or NE trains; Vic Park for NW or S trains). Google says 7-9 minutes. Which in reality is not much farther than the current setup ~400m.

Throw a SELRT stop in the basement or whatever? You'll have one of the most transit accessible spots in the city.

:slob: oh yes...this needs to happen. This is a better idea than Railtown. I can just imagine it. Who can I tweet or write to suggest this?

RyLucky
Jun 7, 2014, 10:45 PM
As is, the Flames make about $90M in revenue each year, a number that could almost double if we made a strong playoff run. Flames have very little debt relative to other teams, mainly because we don't have a new stadium. Ken King has said that a new stadium wouldn't have more seats, but would have many more boxes, which should dramatically increase revenue - probably up to 30 or 40% immediately.

Other than the trickle down from corporations potentially spending more money locally and the jobs that will be created, I fail to see how buying a second stadium is a good investment for taxpayers. Some public money, yes, would be worth it if there is a measurable social benefit, but the the real winners are the owners, several of whom have assets in the billions and could easily pay for it themselves instead of asking for a handout. Whether a 50-50 investment is fair, I don't know.

Spring2008
Jun 12, 2014, 5:23 PM
I tend to agree:
Jesse Kline: No public money for Saddledome 2.0


The money earned by team owners — and, indirectly, the players on their payroll — should not be inflated with public funds that could be used to build new schools and other public infrastructure, or to pay off existing public debt.
Derek Leung/Getty ImagesThe money earned by team owners — and, indirectly, the players on their payroll — should not be inflated with public funds that could be used to build new schools and other public infrastructure, or to pay off existing public debt.


Doling out corporate welfare to sports franchises generally is a bad idea: Instead of basing their business decisions on the laws of supply and demand, billionaire owners can leverage civic pride to pressure politicians into making huge public expenditures that offer little or no real economic benefits.

Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz, one of Canada’s richest men, got Alberta taxpayers to help him build a new $606-million arena — which largely will be paid for by money from the city, a provincial infrastructure fund and increased taxes — by threatening to move the storied franchise to another city.

Much like a child who feels his brother got a bigger slice of cake, the Calgary Flames’ president of hockey operations, Brian Burke, now is trying to leverage the Oilers’ sweetheart deal to push for public funding for a new arena for his own team.

“There’s absolutely no reason why we should watch a new building going up in Edmonton and we’ve got to play in a 1988 building here,” Mr. Burke told the Calgary Chamber of Commerce last week. “Lower bowl in a new arena, in the new generation of arenas, is 9,000 seats, minimum. Our [Saddledome] is what, 6,000? So we’re not generating the revenue that an NHL building does.”
Related

Mr. Burke also says he is concerned that the existing stadium’s design prevents musical acts from coming to town. “The weight load that the roof will bear is tiny, so a lot of big stage acts don’t come here,” he said. (Some arena music acts suspend stage components or oversized props from the roofs of such venues.)

His concern for Calgary’s arts and culture scene is touching. And were he pitching the rationale for a new arena to a group of potential investors, it no doubt would get a fair and attentive reception. When there is a need for a new office building or shopping mall in Calgary, or any other Canadian city, investors do market research, raise private capital and then put shovels in the ground. But Mr. Burke is not looking for people who believe a new arena would be profitable and are willing to risk their own money on the venture; he’s looking for taxpayers to foot a large part of the bill.

Hockey players routinely are criticized for making a disproportionate amount of money compared to the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with them making as much money as the market will bear. But the money earned by team owners — and, indirectly, the players on their payroll — should not be inflated with public funds that could be used to build new schools and other public infrastructure, or to pay off existing public debt.

As Derek Fildebrandt of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation noted, “There are things the city can do to facilitate the building of a new NHL arena … they can assist with the regulatory process or cut through the red tape for a land deal. But there’s no room for public money. This is a business owned by billionaires paying millionaires. It’s grossly unfair to ask Calgarians to pick up the tab.”

The Calgary Herald‘s editorialists, on the other hand, argue that arenas “are a valuable source of economic activity, creating considerable employment inside the building for maintenance, food concessions and other retail shops, but also outside the arena, much to the pleasure of restaurateurs, cabbies and other players in the hospitality industry.”

But in fact, just about every independent analysis of subsidies for sports teams and their venues comes to the opposite conclusion.

Sports franchises do not put a whole lot of new money into the local economy; they simply divert money from other businesses

One study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, for example, found that “there is no correlation between sports facility construction and economic development.” Another study conducted by the Cato Institute found that its results were “no different from those of the previous studies that found no relationship between the professional sports environment and local economies.”

If people don’t go to a hockey game, they generally will spend an equivalent amount of money on dining and other forms of entertainment. Sports franchises do not put a whole lot of new money into the local economy; they simply divert money from other businesses.

That’s not to say that many Canadians wouldn’t prefer to spend their money going to a hockey game. They should have every right to do so. But our sports franchises should be financially supported by the people who freely choose to buy tickets, merchandise and broadcast licenses — not by everyone else.

National Post

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/06/12/jesse-kline-no-public-money-for-saddledome-2-0/

tomthumb2
Jun 12, 2014, 6:39 PM
This is why we won't be getting a new arena or stadium for a loooong time, if ever. When was the last time a sports owner (or ownership group) footed the entire bill themselves? Has it EVER happened? It certainly would be refreshing to see and would cut out a ton of BS and delays but not going to hold my breath on that ever happening.

Spring2008
Jun 12, 2014, 7:40 PM
This is why we won't be getting a new arena or stadium for a loooong time, if ever. When was the last time a sports owner (or ownership group) footed the entire bill themselves? Has it EVER happened? It certainly would be refreshing to see and would cut out a ton of BS and delays but not going to hold my breath on that ever happening.

Most if not all arenas in major Canadian cities have been built with private money only.

H.E.Pennypacker
Jun 12, 2014, 7:49 PM
Most if not all arenas in major Canadian cities have been built with private money only.

Didn't Jerry Jones spend $1 billion of his own money on the Cowboy's stadium too?

tomthumb2
Jun 12, 2014, 9:14 PM
If thats the case, then I'd suggest the flames owners get off their asses and build something instead of waiting for a handout. But of course Edmonton got a sweetheart deal so they want the same thing. Aint gonna happen.

Luk_o
Sep 23, 2014, 6:11 PM
Ken King interview from this morning on FAN960. Comments on the new mixed sports development start at ~19:00.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/boomer-morning/ken-king-in-studio-w-boomer-rhett/

King says to expect more public details soon.

VIce
Sep 23, 2014, 6:40 PM
Ken King interview from this morning on FAN960. Comments on the new mixed sports development start at ~19:00.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/boomer-morning/ken-king-in-studio-w-boomer-rhett/

King says to expect more public details soon.

So, announcement on a combined hockey-football facility before Christmas?

MasterG
Sep 23, 2014, 6:48 PM
I have heard a rumour that some of the big-wigs in the Flames ownership have been quietly buying up some properties in the Sunalta area for personal investment purposes. Through a friend of a friend who is in the know, so not sure if there is much to go on here but interesting if true.

H.E.Pennypacker
Sep 23, 2014, 6:51 PM
I have heard a rumour that some of the big-wigs in the Flames ownership have been quietly buying up some properties in the Sunalta area for personal investment purposes. Through a friend of a friend who is in the know, so not sure if there is much to go on here but interesting if true.

Hmmm.. If I only knew some names I could look into that to verify...

craner
Sep 23, 2014, 6:54 PM
I was just thinking how quiet this thread has gone and then today . . . BAM!
Thanks for posting guys.

Tills13
Sep 23, 2014, 6:57 PM
Ken King interview from this morning on FAN960. Comments on the new mixed sports development start at ~19:00.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/boomer-morning/ken-king-in-studio-w-boomer-rhett/

King says to expect more public details soon.

The way they're just toying with us is brutal...

It'll be the Library all over again.

fusili
Sep 23, 2014, 7:00 PM
If it goes to where the GSL site is, or even the greyhound site, it would be a huge boon to Sunalta. It's on an LRT line (an underused one at that) and has pretty good road access. Interesting.....

flipstah
Sep 23, 2014, 7:15 PM
If it goes to where the GSL site is, or even the greyhound site, it would be a huge boon to Sunalta. It's on an LRT line (an underused one at that) and has pretty good road access. Interesting.....

On the other hand, Stampede is going to feel the hit with the lack of a big arena (or are they keeping the Saddledome and having 2 in Calgary)?

*Stardust*
Sep 23, 2014, 7:33 PM
Across the street from Arriva! *crossing my fingers and toes*

H.E.Pennypacker
Sep 23, 2014, 7:36 PM
Personally I like the Railtown side for an arena ... Could tie in a could of pedestrian overpasses over the CPR tracks (maybe even a terrace over the tracks) to add some connectivity to the EV and would be walkable from a couple of LRT stops in addition to being close the the grounds

Innersoul1
Sep 23, 2014, 8:02 PM
Jeez! King drop the doozy about a multi-purpose facility and Rhett Warner goes and changes the topic! :koko:

This sounds seriously amazing and promising. King posits the new facility as being like nothing we have ever seen. It would be truly massive it it is a facility that can house hockey, football and a fieldhouse? Gosh!

Here are my questions:

-Is Railtown large enough to accommodate such a facility?
-If the West Village is the spot (God that would be an iconic/defining location) I would imagine that the Flames would incorporate some sort of entertainment district like Phoenix or LA. Or do you suspect that this would come naturally?
-Can Christmas come soon enough?

fusili
Sep 23, 2014, 8:07 PM
Jeez! King drop the doozy about a multi-purpose facility and Rhett Warner goes and changes the topic! :koko:

This sounds seriously amazing and promising. King posits the new facility as being like nothing we have ever seen. It would be truly massive it it is a facility that can house hockey, football and a fieldhouse? Gosh!

Here are my questions:

-Is Railtown large enough to accommodate such a facility?-If the West Village is the spot (God that would be an iconic/defining location) I would imagine that the Flames would incorporate some sort of entertainment district like Phoenix or LA. Or do you suspect that this would come naturally?
-Can Christmas come soon enough?

Short answer: yes. Railtown is massive. Massively massive. Super-duper, unbelievably massive. It is roughly a 2 block x 1.5 block site, including the roads.

Spring2008
Sep 23, 2014, 8:26 PM
I'd rather the Railtown, but wouldn't be disappointed with West Village either.

With Railtown, you'd have massive build up of Vic Park, East Village, and East Vic Park at once.

You Need A Thneed
Sep 23, 2014, 8:31 PM
Insiders in the thread at Calgarypuck say that West Village it where it will be, likely a football stadium and a hockey arena, as part of an entertainment district.

Spring2008
Sep 23, 2014, 8:34 PM
Do you think they're actually going to build an arena/stadium combo? Would the city be able to expropriate the Railtown lands from Remington and then maybe pitch that in as the city contribution? The list of owner billionaires can each pitch in $500M to cover the rest of the expenses lol.

Jeez! King drop the doozy about a multi-purpose facility and Rhett Warner goes and changes the topic! :koko:

This sounds seriously amazing and promising. King posits the new facility as being like nothing we have ever seen. It would be truly massive it it is a facility that can house hockey, football and a fieldhouse? Gosh!

Here are my questions:

-Is Railtown large enough to accommodate such a facility?
-If the West Village is the spot (God that would be an iconic/defining location) I would imagine that the Flames would incorporate some sort of entertainment district like Phoenix or LA. Or do you suspect that this would come naturally?
-Can Christmas come soon enough?

DizzyEdge
Sep 23, 2014, 9:09 PM
Re: buying up properties in Sunalta area, is there any way they could carve enough space here?

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.045731,-114.115688&spn=0.004378,0.010568&t=h&z=17

H.E.Pennypacker
Sep 23, 2014, 9:11 PM
^ if they could do that and incorporate a major upgrade to Crowchild in that location I'd be all for it

DizzyEdge
Sep 23, 2014, 9:15 PM
^ if they could do that and incorporate a major upgrade to Crowchild in that location I'd be all for it

Just wondering if any of that hill to the south is develop-able/able to be carved out.

Or maybe here, with integrated hotel with river views

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.046622,-114.107287&spn=0.004405,0.010568&t=h&z=17