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

Calgarian
Nov 26, 2014, 6:48 PM
Edmonton did a good job of ensuring path dependency for the decision through the council working/advisory/whatever group. There was no 'do nothing' alternative. The renovation alternative was costly enough to potentially be more expensive over the long term. The public accepted as fact that if nothing was done the Oilers would likely move.

That's the difference though, there is a do nothing option as the Saddledome could easliy last another 20 years, wuld probably just require a few million dollars to keep it going, and McMahon functions pretty well even though it's an eyesore. The Flames just want more revenue and are looking for the city and taxpayers to subsidize it for them, and not surprisingly, people don't have an appetite for that. It becomes especially clear when the cost of future transit in this city is factored in, I think it was $15 billion in 30 years?

Fuzz
Nov 26, 2014, 7:03 PM
The city is going to be forced to throw hundreds of millions into fixing the roads there(perhaps over a billion, if they address Crowchild?). That's enough. I don't think we should be contributing to a building AND the infrastructure fixes required while we talk about the cheapest way to build an NCLRT. I consider myself one of the lucky ones who goes to a few Flames games a year. Average Calgarians will see more benefit with dollars going elsewhere.

suburbia
Nov 26, 2014, 7:23 PM
The city is going to be forced to throw hundreds of millions into fixing the roads there(perhaps over a billion, if they address Crowchild?). That's enough. I don't think we should be contributing to a building AND the infrastructure fixes required while we talk about the cheapest way to build an NCLRT. I consider myself one of the lucky ones who goes to a few Flames games a year. Average Calgarians will see more benefit with dollars going elsewhere.

Firepark is the way to go. Half of the issues go away. Remediation work would be way less for that area, in need to rejuvenation, than would be required for roads and the like in west village.

H.E.Pennypacker
Nov 26, 2014, 7:27 PM
The city is going to be forced to throw hundreds of millions into fixing the roads there(perhaps over a billion, if they address Crowchild?). That's enough. I don't think we should be contributing to a building AND the infrastructure fixes required while we talk about the cheapest way to build an NCLRT. I consider myself one of the lucky ones who goes to a few Flames games a year. Average Calgarians will see more benefit with dollars going elsewhere.

Agreed.

The Flames need to understand the cost that the City will incur to reconfigure the West Village roads and Crowchild if they're going that far (which I think they should) .. Then when you look at how much development is going on within the core in Downtown and the Beltline, what incentive are there for the City to fund a kickstarter for another area redevelopment? I don't see one.

The City is in a good position to stand strong against giving hand outs for a new downtown arena. That being said there has to be a middle ground somewhere here.

MichaelS
Nov 26, 2014, 7:40 PM
Just fund the fucking thing publicly and get it under construction, as well as a new football stadium too... I'm sick and tired of the dog shit sports venues in this city!

You're more than welcome to take my taxes out of Cochrane for it too... I'd much rather fund that than a lot of the stupid shit my taxes go to now!

Apparently you and I are in the minority.

Nothing is stopping the two of you from writing a cheque to the Flames. Perhaps if all the people who feel the same as you did this, all of this debate would be a non-issue. Maybe the Flames can set-up a kickstarter campaign.

Calgarian
Nov 26, 2014, 8:12 PM
Good article on the limitations of the Saddledome roof. Funny how they engineered it lower to save costs (less air volume to heat and cool) but it turns out to be costing the building millions in revenue from concerts.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/rocking-out-3-5-large-acts-a-year-skip-calgary-due-to-saddledomes-drawbacks

Also, good to see a Calgary forumer playing a big part in discussions with the Flames and setting the city's policy on the issue.

Full Mountain
Nov 26, 2014, 8:52 PM
Good article on the limitations of the Saddledome roof. Funny how they engineered it lower to save costs (less air volume to heat and cool) but it turns out to be costing the building millions in revenue from concerts.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/rocking-out-3-5-large-acts-a-year-skip-calgary-due-to-saddledomes-drawbacks

Also, good to see a Calgary forumer playing a big part in discussions with the Flames and setting the city's policy on the issue.

Wouldn't the equivalent millions in renos fix both the roof and interior configuration they complain so much about?

Build a secondary structure around the existing one to support a secondary roof with a greater capacity and use the same structure that to create a wider concourse and reconfigure the seating. Time for the billionaires to stop pissing and moaning about how their million dollar investment isn't working out and make it work out.

Hell you don't see the regular joe asking the city for help to renovate their home because the basement isn't suited so they can make money.....:hell:

Calgarian
Nov 26, 2014, 8:59 PM
Wouldn't the equivalent millions in renos fix both the roof and interior configuration they complain so much about?

Build a secondary structure around the existing one to support a secondary roof with a greater capacity and use the same structure that to create a wider concourse and reconfigure the seating. Time for the billionaires to stop pissing and moaning about how their million dollar investment isn't working out and make it work out.

Hell you don't see the regular joe asking the city for help to renovate their home because the basement isn't suited so they can make money.....:hell:

The roof is actually a pretty good feat of engineering, covering it up would be a shame. The roof is supported by steel cables, this is what limits the capacity. Adding a second roof would require removing the defining feature of the building as there is no space below to add the giant trusses most arenas use. Also, the building is not designed to support trusses as there is nothing to take the loads down to the foundation. This would basically require retrofitting the building in such a way that you might as well build a new one.

Old pic showing the steel cables before teh concrete panels went on.
http://www.cpci.ca/images/dir/potm___6/125.jpg
http://www.cpci.ca/en/about_us/project_month/january_2013/

DizzyEdge
Nov 26, 2014, 9:29 PM
You'd think you could create some sort of internal scaffolding structure that could be erected to hold what a ceiling would normally hold at concerts, and then removed afterwards.

Calgarian
Nov 26, 2014, 9:40 PM
You'd think you could create some sort of internal scaffolding structure that could be erected to hold what a ceiling would normally hold at concerts, and then removed afterwards.

We're talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds here. The thing you have to remember is that when you support a load, there has to be a means to transport that weight down and into the ground. Scaffolding would require some form of foundation in order to do this, quite impossible considering they don't even melt the ice for a show and putting it somewhere in the seating area will block the view for many, many seats. Also keep in mind how low the roof of the dome is...

McMurph
Nov 26, 2014, 10:26 PM
You'd think you could create some sort of internal scaffolding structure that could be erected to hold what a ceiling would normally hold at concerts, and then removed afterwards.

That sounds like it would be inviting a concert disaster of epic proportions. Maybe we can demo it at a Bieber show.

DizzyEdge
Nov 26, 2014, 10:47 PM
For Bieber we can just throw something together from Ikea

suburbia
Nov 26, 2014, 11:46 PM
The roof is actually a pretty good feat of engineering, covering it up would be a shame. The roof is supported by steel cables, this is what limits the capacity. Adding a second roof would require removing the defining feature of the building as there is no space below to add the giant trusses most arenas use. Also, the building is not designed to support trusses as there is nothing to take the loads down to the foundation. This would basically require retrofitting the building in such a way that you might as well build a new one.

Old pic showing the steel cables before teh concrete panels went on.
http://www.cpci.ca/images/dir/potm___6/125.jpg
http://www.cpci.ca/en/about_us/project_month/january_2013/

That's a pretty impressive design - the cables, to a degree, add to the strength of the curved walls, keeping them together. Obviously they can hold their own weight, but still very cool.

Retrofitting that is a non-starter just from looking at this picture.

Jay in Cowtown
Nov 27, 2014, 12:00 AM
Nothing is stopping the two of you from writing a cheque to the Flames. Perhaps if all the people who feel the same as you did this, all of this debate would be a non-issue. Maybe the Flames can set-up a kickstarter campaign.

How about you tell your buddy Naheed to give us our tax money back for that bullshit pedestrian bridge and that ridiculous street light pole near the airport... I'll personally go give the check directly to Ken King! :tup:

DizzyEdge
Nov 27, 2014, 12:08 AM
How about you tell your buddy Naheed to give us our tax money back for that bullshit pedestrian bridge and that ridiculous street light pole near the airport... I'll personally go give the check directly to Ken King! :tup:

Nenshi wasn't involved in the "peace" bridge at all, he wasn't even Mayor yet.

DizzyEdge
Nov 27, 2014, 12:11 AM
This is like discussions on the newspaper comment sections where people bitch about $25 million for the peace bridge, 11 mill for bike lanes, and 500k for the dumb blue ring as the cause of over 4 billion in debt when it amounts to less than 1%

PlanZ
Nov 27, 2014, 12:12 AM
How about you tell your buddy Naheed to give us our tax money back for that bullshit pedestrian bridge and that ridiculous street light pole near the airport... I'll personally go give the check directly to Ken King! :tup:
You live in Cochring. What are you on about getting "your" money back?

speedog
Nov 27, 2014, 12:46 AM
Nenshi wasn't involved in the "peace" bridge at all, he wasn't even Mayor yet.
Awaiting Jay in Cowtown's response to this.

On a side note, someone in another forum I frequent mentioned that one of the Flames owners owns a sizeable chunk of the Firepark property - don't if there's any truth to this but if true it could elevate Firepark as a possibility.

Policy Wonk
Nov 27, 2014, 1:14 AM
On a side note, someone in another forum I frequent mentioned that one of the Flames owners owns a sizeable chunk of the Firepark property - don't if there's any truth to this but if true it could elevate Firepark as a possibility.

Unless something has changed very recently, I don't believe that is the case.

Jay in Cowtown
Nov 27, 2014, 3:20 AM
Awaiting Jay in Cowtown's response to this.


lol, I'll make sure to have enough time to check Wikipedia before shooting off my mouth with rants I have no facts to back it with!

there, fair enough? ;)

but regardless... FUND THE FUCKING THING!

Doug
Nov 27, 2014, 4:34 AM
My recollection is that Doug buys birthday billboards for a hobby.

A very uninspired and juvenile try: Cal Wenzel is unhip, Nenshi is hip. I typically disagree with Nenshi so I am unhip so I must like Cal Wenzel. I am particularly unhip because I used more than 140 characters

Fuzz
Nov 27, 2014, 4:40 AM
lol, I'll make sure to have enough time to check Wikipedia before shooting off my mouth with rants I have no facts to back it with!

there, fair enough? ;)

but regardless... FUND THE FUCKING THING!

How much? Should we just buy the whole f'n thing for them? Maybe some of us would like our tax dollars to go towards something we use on a daily basis.

RyLucky
Nov 27, 2014, 4:54 AM
I've bolded my favourite arguments in favour of using city tax dollars to fund a new stadium:

How about you tell your buddy Naheed to give us our tax money back for that bullshit pedestrian bridge and that ridiculous street light pole near the airport... I'll personally go give the check directly to Ken King! :tup:

lol, I'll make sure to have enough time to check Wikipedia before shooting off my mouth with rants I have no facts to back it with!

there, fair enough? ;)

but regardless... FUND THE FUCKING THING!

Just fund the fucking thing publicly and get it under construction, as well as a new football stadium too... I'm sick and tired of the dog shit sports venues in this city!

You're more than welcome to take my taxes out of Cochrane for it too... I'd much rather fund that than a lot of the stupid shit my taxes go to now!

I think the city should step up with something, cetainly cash won't fly with taxpayers but I think land loan, tax breaks would. While I'm not a season ticket holder I've watched the stamps and flames for free on TV literally 100's of games plus attending the occasional game at the dome or McMahon. In comparison the city is giving land and spending $250 million in tax dollars on a new library and I haven't been to a city library in 15 years!

RyLucky
Nov 27, 2014, 4:55 AM
A very uninspired and juvenile try: Cal Wenzel is unhip, Nenshi is hip. I typically disagree with Nenshi so I am unhip so I must like Cal Wenzel. I am particularly unhip because I used more than 140 characters

You seem internally conflicted.

RyLucky
Nov 27, 2014, 5:01 AM
There's a sweet plaque somewhere in the Saddledome of its blue prints. I learned that the Dome is a "hyperboloid parabola" cut into a perfect sphere. I'd be sad to see this icon go, but sadder if I had to pay to get rid of it.

Socguy
Nov 27, 2014, 2:04 PM
So a swanky new arena would transform Edmonton's downtown but not Calgary's? Am I missing something or is Calgary's downtown just that awesome.

Calgary's arena is already basically downtown so what sort of transformative properties will moving it have?

suburbia
Nov 27, 2014, 4:51 PM
A very uninspired and juvenile try: Cal Wenzel is unhip, Nenshi is hip. I typically disagree with Nenshi so I am unhip so I must like Cal Wenzel. I am particularly unhip because I used more than 140 characters

Your decisions should not be driven by your impression of personal hipness.

Smart solutions are not about ideology. That's why Nenshi wins.

O-tacular
Nov 27, 2014, 5:03 PM
WTF is going on in this thread? suburbia's on his meds or something because he's arguing against Doug and not simply trolling about the inner city.

Allan83
Nov 27, 2014, 6:08 PM
There have been some really great points from all forumers.

There are also a few key assumptions that we need to elucidate:

-How many seats? How many boxes? A few years ago, King told me there would be the same number of seats, but they would be better, and there would be about 2x as many boxes.

-Will the Saddledome remain? Who owns it when the dust clears? In the same conversation, King told me there was no way to keep both, because the saddledome is too expensive to operate and Calgary's market can't support two arenas.

-In 1980 the team cost $16M. Today it is valued around $451M.



My view:

The public DOES stand to potentially benefit from the construction of a newer, larger stadium, but from this gain we must subtract the opportunity cost of premium land, debt servicing, and the loss of the Saddledome. In my estimation, the sum magnitude of direct and indirect benefit to Calgary would probably be in the 10s of millions annually with only minimal social benefit, assuming the alternative is the status quo. Bus service hours, bike lanes, and beautification projects might be better bang for our buck, especially given the limited commitment/risk of investing in these public services/infrastructure. For the price of the stadium, we could probably build 25 state-of-the-art minor hockey arenas and free equipment for every kid in Calgary. Calgary could probably build its own Rideau Canal for half a billion.

Where it IS worth investing city $$$ is in peripheral projects associated with a new stadium, so that private ROI can be maximized. This might include anything from road realignment to transit to site work for adjacent developments. The city should do whatever it can to keep the area near the new stadium as vibrant, multi-use, and 24-7 as possible. The last thing we want is for $0.5B dollars to be spent to get the same thing we have now. As outdated as the Dome might be, the area surrounding the Dome is 100x worse.

Ideally, this is what I would like - though a complex agreement always has room for compromise:
-City-owned land be donated to ownership group
-private developers fully fund stadium construction and operation
-as part of the deal, the city promises to spend x million dollars by such a date on upgrading the entire WV, including changes to road layout, pedestrian infrastructure, park space, river access, possibly a CPR underpass to 17th street, a new bridge to 19th st NW, and maybe even fix CROWCHILD.
-City holds exclusive right to parking management
-City charges for water&power
-Building code on stadiums be carefully revisited, ensuring design is up to modern best practices that will benefit Calgarians
-property tax exemption (may depend on how concession space is owned/leased/controlled)

This kind of deal would mean the owners would build the stadium for $400-700
M (partly user fee), and the city would spend invest a few hundred million (depending on scope) around the stadium to ensure its success while addressing some other needs at the same time.

The timing is also important. It would be great to take a Keynesian approach and buy this during the next down turn, so long as we could save before and/or access low interest. In light of recent property tax hikes, it might be best to wait a few years. It would also be great to move forward as CMLC involvement in the EV begins to wrap up. I'm pretty skeptical of an Olympic bid in the next few years, but perhaps down the road.

I’d like to keep the Saddledome as well. I think it’s an important historic building at this point. I’d be prepared to sacrifice the Stampede Corral, however. Maybe a redeveloped Corral, plus the Saddledome along with other buildings on the grounds could function as the large convention facility we’ve been talking about?

DizzyEdge
Nov 27, 2014, 6:20 PM
That's an interesting point. Although the Corral is a listed historic resource, I don't believe the Saddledome is. Typically a 30 year old building wouldn't qualify to get on the list, but of course the Saddledome is unlike most buildings due to its landmark status.

Calgarian
Nov 27, 2014, 7:53 PM
Why is the Corral historic? it's a big concrete bunker with no aesthetic appeal at all. If we keep the Corral and demolish the Saddledome I'm moving to Winnipeg...

O-tacular
Nov 27, 2014, 8:05 PM
Why is the Corral historic? it's a big concrete bunker with no aesthetic appeal at all. If we keep the Corral and demolish the Saddledome I'm moving to Winnipeg...

Yeah I don't really get it either. It does have a certain old school feeling when inside of it with the beams at the top and the seating, but generally I'm in agreement. The Dome is much more impressive. The roof is amazing from inside.

Edit: The Big 4 is the real turd though. Why don't they just get rid of it?

suburbia
Nov 27, 2014, 8:40 PM
Why is the Corral historic?

It could work well as a homeless shelter.

*Stardust*
Nov 27, 2014, 8:47 PM
Yeah I don't really get it either. It does have a certain old school feeling when inside of it with the beams at the top and the seating, but generally I'm in agreement. The Dome is much more impressive. The roof is amazing from inside.

Edit: The Big 4 is the real turd though. Why don't they just get rid of it?

Agreed. Big four would be my number one choice for an arena , but I feel like stampede grounds are out of the question.

suburbia
Nov 27, 2014, 8:57 PM
WTF is going on in this thread? suburbia's on his meds or something because he's arguing against Doug and not simply trolling about the inner city.

Most of you have me pegged wrong. Just because my handle is suburbia doesn't mean I'm a one-dimensional ideologue. I'm a fan of higher density urban planning, public spaces, civil society, leading architecture, but also am a fan of understanding complexities at a level where solutions are not always black or white.

suburbia
Nov 27, 2014, 9:02 PM
Agreed. Big four would be my number one choice for an arena , but I feel like stampede grounds are out of the question.

Big four location could actually be a great location for a good-sized full-service hotel with conference-type facilities that could augment the BMO centre.

DizzyEdge
Nov 27, 2014, 9:37 PM
The Big Four is actually also on the heritage list, although I personally don't care for it.
The key is when then Calgary Heritage Authority evaluates whether a building should be deemed 'historic', architecture is only one part of it, a lot is also the actual history of the site. As for the corral, unfortunately it's 'statement of significance' isn't online but a summary says ( my summary of the summary):

-Architect John Stevenson was commissioned to undertake the project. Stevenson spent several months touring North America to study the latest in arena design.

-Opened in December of 1950, the Stampede Corral was a fire resistant structure capable of seating 6,650 and 2,200 standing (19 rows on rink sides, 21 on ends). Modern in every respect, the arena was praised for its steel roof arches which were designed not to obstruct views of the ice surface or horse show ring.

-The ice rink itself was controlled by a modern freezing plant enabling ice to be formed in twenty-four hours; only Maple Leaf Gardens could also boast this service.

-The building combines Art Deco, Moderne, and International styles. The stepped back massing is characteristic of the period. Building decoration is derivative of the Art Deco and Moderne influences. Innovative construction (long span steel), the use of high quality materials (terrazzo floors), and modern mechanical systems (the first refrigeration system of its kind) combined to provide a facility unmatched in Western Canada.

plus I believe associations with Stampede Wrestling, etc.

It is tricky though when the architecture of a historic building falls out of style, (eg brutalism)

That said, remember that in the 1970s, about 60-70 years after the era of the sorts of buildings on Stephen Ave, those buildings were also considered out of style and wholesale demolition happened all over the innercity. Mid century buildings are now that same 60-70 years old.

Calgarian
Nov 27, 2014, 10:43 PM
Interesting, thanks for that Dizzy.

O-tacular
Nov 27, 2014, 11:26 PM
It could work well as a homeless shelter.


And there's the suburbia we all know.

McMurph
Nov 28, 2014, 5:36 AM
I'd hate to see either the Corral or Saddledome demolished. Both have history and architectural value, and the 'dome looks great on the skyline from so many angles (including up the hill on 17th SW and from inside my house). The inside of the Saddledome, however, has been pretty badly buggered up with the renovations over the years to make it more profitable. The lower bowl boxes in particular (which they obviously needed to add) wrecked the lines and the nice open concourse that wrapped the whole rink.

suburbia
Nov 28, 2014, 7:04 PM
I'd hate to see either the Corral or Saddledome demolished. Both have history and architectural value, and the 'dome looks great on the skyline from so many angles (including up the hill on 17th SW and from inside my house). The inside of the Saddledome, however, has been pretty badly buggered up with the renovations over the years to make it more profitable. The lower bowl boxes in particular (which they obviously needed to add) wrecked the lines and the nice open concourse that wrapped the whole rink.

The opportunity cost of keeping the coral in the long-term is too high. There is extremely limited architectural merit there IMHO, and the history is limited. Lots of things are "nice to do" items, but to make a decision, one really has to consider opportunity cost. There are many way better things that can be done with that footprint.

Regarding the Saddledome, I'm more conflicted about it.

Fuzz
Nov 28, 2014, 8:43 PM
The opportunity cost of keeping the coral in the long-term is too high. There is extremely limited architectural merit there IMHO, and the history is limited. Lots of things are "nice to do" items, but to make a decision, one really has to consider opportunity cost. There are many way better things that can be done with that footprint.

Regarding the Saddledome, I'm more conflicted about it.

If its just the footprint to be worried about, they have lots of surface parking lots. Tear out the seats and turn it into indoor parking! Footprint regained. :)

Riise
Nov 28, 2014, 9:07 PM
How well would the Dome work as a market? Even if it was just a placeholder use.

Calgarian
Nov 28, 2014, 9:16 PM
How well would the Dome work as a market? Even if it was just a placeholder use.

Not sure if the stands play any sort of a structural role, if they don't then you could probably remove them and turn the building into a giant exhibition hall or something. I'm sure given an appropriate budget and a talented designer there would be a ton of uses for the Dome.

MalcolmTucker
Nov 28, 2014, 9:21 PM
Finally, an indoor water park to bring us up to par with Edmonton and honour our western heritage somehow!

Wooster
Nov 28, 2014, 9:22 PM
Finally, an indoor water park to bring us up to par with Edmonton and honour our western heritage somehow!

I like this idea.

Fuzz
Nov 28, 2014, 9:52 PM
Naw, turn it into a big indoor ski/snowboard park for the summer. Half pipe? No way dude! Full bowl!

Wentworth
Nov 28, 2014, 9:58 PM
If Dubai can have an indoor ski hill, we can have an indoor beach.

Something like this would be awesome:

2nDtBaMFiwY

Riise
Nov 28, 2014, 10:31 PM
Something like this would be awesome:

I've been there and was thinking that would be an interesting option if it is structurally possible.

Edit: That place is massive though.

suburbia
Nov 28, 2014, 11:04 PM
How well would the Dome work as a market? Even if it was just a placeholder use.

I don't think that wouldn't make economic sense. Markets are good where there are virtually no alternative possibilities. At the dome they wouldn't even be able to cover the electricity costs.

bt04ku
Nov 28, 2014, 11:10 PM
Not sure if the stands play any sort of a structural role, if they don't then you could probably remove them and turn the building into a giant exhibition hall or something. I'm sure given an appropriate budget and a talented designer there would be a ton of uses for the Dome.

The stands were the problem at Maple Leaf Gardens when they re-purposed that (originally wanted movie theatres, but wouldn't work with the way the bleachers were). But eventually it became a good use of space.

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/articles/2011/10/3229/urbantoronto-3229-9404.jpg


There are loads of options if the money is there, but who would be willing to invest it is the important question.

YYCguys
Nov 28, 2014, 11:27 PM
Wentworth, that's an amazing complex! If only someone with some big bucks would partner up with the Stampede and re create that in the Dome!

suburbia
Nov 28, 2014, 11:50 PM
The stands were the problem at Maple Leaf Gardens when they re-purposed that (originally wanted movie theatres, but wouldn't work with the way the bleachers were). But eventually it became a good use of space.

There are loads of options if the money is there, but who would be willing to invest it is the important question.

I think the Saddledome would be much more complex. With the concave outside walls, the stands will be much more integral to the structure. Possibly you could take out half of it and create an amazing amphitheater, but even that would cost a massive amount of money that won't make sense. The payback just isn't there - and keep in mind that the Saddledome location is not brilliant for food stores and the like. Are you really going to pay $16 for parking so you can buy some bananas?

In contrast, look at Maple Leaf Gardens location in Toronto:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.662299,-79.3807046,528m/data=!3m1!1e3

Policy Wonk
Nov 29, 2014, 12:36 AM
I doubt the long-term fortunes of the Saddledome post-Flames will be determined by much other than it's operating costs. And for the record, I think the re-purposed MLG is the tackiest thing I have ever seen, just gross.

And i'm trying to remember the interior of the Stampede Corral as it was, but I'm not sure I have ever been there. I remember being in an arena type building at the Stampede Grounds when I was a kid for a rodeo event, but I remember it being much smaller than the Corral.

Spring2008
Nov 29, 2014, 3:27 AM
Def don't demo the saddledome, that buildings a landmark and one of the most unique arenas in the world.
I'm sure there's a lot of options to repurpose, just hire a high profile architect.

Sounds like the flames haven't even selected a site yet, contrary to what we 'be heard here.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Flames owner: 3 or 4 options to locate 'iconic' arena

JASON MARKUSOFF, CALGARY HERALD
More from Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald

DAN HEALING, CALGARY HERALD
More from Dan Healing, Calgary Herald
Published on: November 28, 2014Last Updated: November 28, 2014 5:06 PM MST


SHARE ADJUST COMMENT PRINT
The Calgary Flames are “getting close” to choosing among three or four potential arena locations but hasn’t yet determined its financing proposal, said the chairman of the hockey club’s ownership group.

Murray Edwards, a billionaire oilpatch and ski resorts investor, spoke out on the team’s long-simmering plans to replace Scotiabank Saddledome on Friday, days after the Herald reported on some of the Flames’ options and extent of Mayor Naheed Nenshi’s reluctance to assist with the process or funding.

There’s no preferred site yet, said Edwards.

“We’ve been looking at options for both new buildings and new sites. We haven’t finalized on anything but we’re getting close and what we’re trying to understand is what works as the best model that works for the province, works for the city and works for the teams,” he told reporters at a business forum in Lake Louise.

“And when I say that, I don’t mean that in the context of the financial support or contributions. We haven’t got to that model, but the concept of something that’s an iconic building for the province, an iconic building for the city, something that’s a gathering place. You know, arenas in cities are gathering places, where people gather for pro sports or concerts or conventions.”

Flames CEO Ken King told the Herald the team will look for some sort of “public-private partnership” when it comes forward with its arena proposal. He suggested the ownership group will have its own ante.

“I think that everyone will be very satisfied that all interests are represented financially,” King said.

The team has studied building an arena elsewhere on the Stampede grounds, as well as around where the Greyhound station currently sits west of downtown, though Nenshi and other councillors say they don’t want to give the team free land. Edwards’ remarks indicate those aren’t the only options the club has.



Edwards is one of six Calgary businessmen who jointly co-own the Flames, lacrosse Roughnecks, minor hockey Hitmen and have a majority stake in football’s Stampeders club.


http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/flames-owner-3-or-4-options-to-locate-iconic-arena

*Stardust*
Nov 29, 2014, 3:43 AM
It sounds like from the previous article that Railtown wasn't even an option. Now that Brad Lamb has bought some of the land north of the Orchard, that probably makes it even less likely.

That probably leaves West Village, Firepark, and Stampede Grounds. Im voting stampede grounds. Prime location! As long as it's not designed like a cowboy hat, saddle, boot, horse etc.

suburbia
Nov 29, 2014, 4:38 AM
It sounds like from the previous article that Railtown wasn't even an option. Now that Brad Lamb has bought some of the land north of the Orchard, that probably makes it even less likely.

That probably leaves West Village, Firepark, and Stampede Grounds. Im voting stampede grounds. Prime location! As long as it's not designed like a cowboy hat, saddle, boot, horse etc.

Of those, we know the Flames DO NOT want Stampede Grounds. We also know that the opportunity cost of West Village is substantial, so major reluctance from the City. Firepark is the best choice as it will rejuvenate that entire area, and as such be palatable for the City. It also has the most land (particularly if in concert with Max Bell lands) and thus offers major development upside. Great choice!

The Fisher Account
Nov 29, 2014, 4:56 AM
Firepark? The best choice? Yeah, let's move our arena out of the vibrant downtown. Seems like a great idea.

http://i.giflike.com/eafWT61.gif

unibrain
Nov 29, 2014, 4:21 PM
I'd personally like to see the new dome built on the Stampede grounds. I just think the Victoria Park area (and lets not forget East Village) stands to benefit greatly from it, plus with all the existing infrastructure (benefit of having two LRT stations nearby), being able to "walk" easily to and from downtown now that the 4th street underpass is complete and easy access to the Red Mile would make it a winner. The Stampede would be crazy to lose a new stadium deal. It would go great with the "LA Live" concept they want to build with hotels, offices, restaurants, retail and the whole thing.

I wonder if the Saddledome could be re-purposed for something Stampede related.. I know they just built a brand new building for agriculture.. but something to that liking.

The Fisher Account
Nov 29, 2014, 4:52 PM
I'd personally like to see the new dome built on the Stampede grounds. I just think the Victoria Park area (and lets not forget East Village) stands to benefit greatly from it, plus with all the existing infrastructure (benefit of having two LRT stations nearby), being able to "walk" easily to and from downtown now that the 4th street underpass is complete and easy access to the Red Mile would make it a winner. The Stampede would be crazy to lose a new stadium deal. It would go great with the "LA Live" concept they want to build with hotels, offices, restaurants, retail and the whole thing.

I wonder if the Saddledome could be re-purposed for something Stampede related.. I know they just built a brand new building for agriculture.. but something to that liking.

Flames don't want to share revenue with the Stampede board anymore and there's not enough room. Next.

ZeDgE
Nov 29, 2014, 5:44 PM
Firepark? The best choice? Yeah, let's move our arena out of the vibrant downtown. Seems like a great idea.

http://i.giflike.com/eafWT61.gif

:haha:

Agree, this would be awful.

*Stardust*
Nov 29, 2014, 6:03 PM
Flames don't want to share revenue with the Stampede board anymore and there's not enough room. Next.

That only leaves one option...west village!

speedog
Nov 29, 2014, 6:11 PM
Flames don't want to share revenue with the Stampede board anymore and there's not enough room. Next.
Actually, there probably is enough room on the north end of the lands that the Stampede board owns (up to 12th Ave, no?) - more likely it's the parking revenues and other revenues that are the real issue.

speedog
Nov 29, 2014, 6:18 PM
Interestingly enough, the Bottomlands Park area north of the new science center could accommodate such a facility as well but I don't think that ever would've been considered.

Certainly can't compare Calgary's situation to Edmonton as Calgary doesn't have a glut of inner-city/core lands that can be redeveloped for such a facility.

Spring2008
Nov 29, 2014, 6:22 PM
Not sure why Railtown isn't the primary consideration. Infrastructure's mostly in place, can prob build on both sides of the tracks, but that would be too easy wouldn't it?

O-tacular
Nov 29, 2014, 6:31 PM
Wow that article with Murray Edwards in it makes it seem like this thing won't be happening anytime soon. It sounds like there are just way too many conflicting voices.

speedog
Nov 29, 2014, 6:32 PM
Not sure why Railtown isn't the primary consideration. Infrastructure's mostly in place, can prob build on both sides of the tracks, but that would be too easy wouldn't it?

There's not enough room on the north side of the CPR tracks for either an arena or stadium. There is, however, enough space on the south side of the tracks down to the Stampede lands to build such a mutli-purpose facility - what I see the issue is that the west village is a more high albeit cramped profile site. Firepark - lots of space but just too far away from anything aside from transportation.

bt04ku
Nov 29, 2014, 6:54 PM
Wow that article with Murray Edwards in it makes it seem like this thing won't be happening anytime soon. It sounds like there are just way too many conflicting voices.

It sounds like they're starting to plant seeds to gauge public support before asking for money.

O-tacular
Nov 29, 2014, 9:06 PM
It sounds like they're starting to plant seeds to gauge public support before asking for money.

Well I think they've gotten a pretty resounding 'Fuck no!'. Filthy rich people begging for public money really upsets me.

H.E.Pennypacker
Nov 29, 2014, 9:17 PM
Actually, there probably is enough room on the north end of the lands that the Stampede board owns (up to 12th Ave, no?) - more likely it's the parking revenues and other revenues that are the real issue.

There is enough room, yes, but the Flames ownership won't go down that route again since they won't earn as much revenue (as mentioned before) .. Not to mention having to deal with the Stampede Board on issues

I wished the City owned a chunk of land beside the grounds, because they could then do some sort of land swap with the Stampede to get a chunk of land broken out and given to the City for a new arena while the Stampede gets land back in return to use

Not sure why Railtown isn't the primary consideration. Infrastructure's mostly in place, can prob build on both sides of the tracks, but that would be too easy wouldn't it?

It would be the easiest but at the same time they'd have to buy that land off Remington and it likely wouldn't be cheap .. Whereas if the Flames can push for some City-owned land, there is a reasonable chance they'd get a good deal on it in some capacity

*Stardust*
Nov 29, 2014, 9:54 PM
There is enough room, yes, but the Flames ownership won't go down that route again since they won't earn as much revenue (as mentioned before) .. Not to mention having to deal with the Stampede Board on issues

I wished the City owned a chunk of land beside the grounds, because they could then do some sort of land swap with the Stampede to get a chunk of land broken out and given to the City for a new arena while the Stampede gets land back in return to use



It would be the easiest but at the same time they'd have to buy that land off Remington and it likely wouldn't be cheap .. Whereas if the Flames can push for some City-owned land, there is a reasonable chance they'd get a good deal on it in some capacity

I'm all for Railtown, but seems like a small site for a mixed development. Unless they tore down the bus barn and bought the land that Brad Lamb owns.

bt04ku
Nov 29, 2014, 10:58 PM
Well I think they've gotten a pretty resounding 'Fuck no!'. Filthy rich people begging for public money really upsets me.

Seems that way so far. I imagine phase two of the campaign will be tossing out good ideas that imply or require lots of infrastructure improvement. The city has the cards so I think any money that does go to the project will actually be for public benefit even if it is a result of the project itself (tying into transit, road improvement to handle traffic, pedestrian improvement etc.) which I don't think many would have an issue with.

Luckily I think we're not going to see a 'we may have to move the team' bluff after Katz's blunder with Seattle.

DizzyEdge
Nov 30, 2014, 3:39 AM
There is enough room, yes, but the Flames ownership won't go down that route again since they won't earn as much revenue (as mentioned before) .. Not to mention having to deal with the Stampede Board on issues

I wished the City owned a chunk of land beside the grounds, because they could then do some sort of land swap with the Stampede to get a chunk of land broken out and given to the City for a new arena while the Stampede gets land back in return to use



It would be the easiest but at the same time they'd have to buy that land off Remington and it likely wouldn't be cheap .. Whereas if the Flames can push for some City-owned land, there is a reasonable chance they'd get a good deal on it in some capacity

I'm not sure if this makes any difference, but my understanding is the city owns the grounds.

Socguy
Nov 30, 2014, 7:47 PM
Regardless of where the Flames decide they want to put a new arena, I suspect the city would put the kibosh on any plan that would see the arena move away from DT or any other place they don't like.

Full Mountain
Nov 30, 2014, 9:23 PM
For all you proponents, if this arena complex is going have an amazing ability to revitalize an area why not put it at Firepark the area could use the pick me up, it has transit and road access as well as the required space, overall it seems kinda ideal. Oh and best yet the city wouldn't have to be involved.

McMurph
Nov 30, 2014, 10:02 PM
Arena in the West Village as a core part of a modified area redevelopment plan. Stadium and Fieldhouse at Firepark. There isn't enough room in the core for everything and the arena is the only part of it that really ought to be downtown.

I'm not sure I buy King's "we're looking at multiple sites" line. At this stage in the game I would think they know exactly what they're doing.

suburbia
Dec 1, 2014, 12:37 AM
For all you proponents, if this arena complex is going have an amazing ability to revitalize an area why not put it at Firepark the area could use the pick me up, it has transit and road access as well as the required space, overall it seems kinda ideal. Oh and best yet the city wouldn't have to be involved.

Absolutely. There are many possibilities there, and it is the most reasonable from the city's perspective.

I think many of the people against the idea are being a pinch selfish / unfair in their assessment.

Full Mountain
Dec 1, 2014, 2:54 AM
Absolutely. There are many possibilities there, and it is the most reasonable from the city's perspective.

I think many of the people against the idea are being a pinch selfish / unfair in their assessment.

With Max Bell on the other side of Memorial you could have complex that spans both sides, with a Max Bell replacement arenas, stadium, field house on the north side and an iconic NHL arena on the south where Max Bell is now, the tunnel to connect the two all ready exists.

If the Flames want the city to be involved there's a good way, replace the Max Bell and provide the city it and the land the new areans sit on for the existing lands south of Memorial.

RyLucky
Dec 1, 2014, 5:13 AM
Absolutely. There are many possibilities there, and it is the most reasonable from the city's perspective.

I think many of the people against the idea are being a pinch selfish / unfair in their assessment.

I think if you want guests to take their money and go home after a game instead of spending money at local restaurants&bars (minimal public benefit and minimal reason for the city to lift a finger to help the owners move it from its current location), Firepark is an OK location. Can you imagine if Barlow Trail was the new Red Mile?

suburbia
Dec 1, 2014, 3:26 PM
I think if you want guests to take their money and go home after a game instead of spending money at local restaurants&bars (minimal public benefit and minimal reason for the city to lift a finger to help the owners move it from its current location), Firepark is an OK location. Can you imagine if Barlow Trail was the new Red Mile?

We've been over this NUMEROUS times Lucky. The Max Bell lands are extensive, and would allow for a promenade with commercial, entertainment and residential throughout, extending from the Barlow MaxBell station virtually through to 17th avenue. The total space this accords for commercial, entertainment and residential is phenomenal. Your suggestion is like me saying, can you imagine Bow Trail as the Red Mile. It is a silly comment.

Riise
Dec 1, 2014, 3:44 PM
The total space this accords for commercial, entertainment and residential is phenomenal.

Even if there is a fair bit of potential at Fire Park, is there a need to unlock this potential at this point in time? With East Village undergoing an urban renewal program and places like West Village and East 17th holding more potential than Fire Park, why should the City be directing renewal to Fire Park? How is this in Calgary's best interest?

McMurph
Dec 1, 2014, 3:58 PM
Even if there is a fair bit of potential at Fire Park, is there a need to unlock this potential at this point in time? With East Village undergoing an urban renewal program and places like West Village and East 17th holding more potential than Fire Park, why should the City be directing renewal to Fire Park? How is this in Calgary's best interest?

Why not? West Village, Victoria Park and East Village will all develop just fine without needing the catalyst of what the Flames are offering. I still strongly maintain that the stadium and field house part of the purported project would be a drag on good urban neighbourhood growth -- too big a footprint with too infrequent use. An arena, on the other hand, can sit fairly nicely in an otherwise intact and happening 'hood. An arena can intensify use of a good space, but isn't going to make a bad space good. Arena downtown, Stadium somewhere else.

Calgary doesn't need "renewal". It needs to clean up a few sites, improve a bit of infrastructure and make sure that we get the best use out of all of our best land.

fusili
Dec 1, 2014, 4:38 PM
What I have never understood is the idea of a stadium as a development tool. Stadiums don't foster much development, especially not residential (at least not to the effect that stadium boosters claim). There might be some restaurants and pubs that spin off from the stadium, but not in any considerable way.

You know what fosters residential development? Grocery stores. A grocery store will bring in way more residential development than a stadium.

I'm not sold on any kind of municipal subsidy for a stadium. If they need a new stadium because this one is insufficient for their needs- they can build a new one themselves. The only way I could see any municipal support is if it involved a public amenity- i.e. the complex was made available for minor league sports, Calgary rec programs, etc.

fusili
Dec 1, 2014, 4:39 PM
Why not? West Village, Victoria Park and East Village will all develop just fine without needing the catalyst of what the Flames are offering. I still strongly maintain that the stadium and field house part of the purported project would be a drag on good urban neighbourhood growth -- too big a footprint with too infrequent use. An arena, on the other hand, can sit fairly nicely in an otherwise intact and happening 'hood. An arena can intensify use of a good space, but isn't going to make a bad space good. Arena downtown, Stadium somewhere else.

Calgary doesn't need "renewal". It needs to clean up a few sites, improve a bit of infrastructure and make sure that we get the best use out of all of our best land.

With incredible residential growth in our centre city already, a stadium/arena is only a loss of tax revenue IMO (what kind of tax does a stadium pay anyway?)

Riise
Dec 1, 2014, 4:50 PM
Why not?

If Fire Park can really accommodate commercial and residential, it wouldn't be wise to meet some of the finite demand for grey/brownfield commercial and residential redevelopment in a less than ideal location. East Village, West Village and East 17th are much better locations, let's finish with them first instead of directing development to Fire Park.

MalcolmTucker
Dec 1, 2014, 4:53 PM
With incredible residential growth in our centre city already, a stadium/arena is only a loss of tax revenue IMO (what kind of tax does a stadium pay anyway?)

Unless tax is abated, it would pay commercial property tax at a much higher rate. The condos displaced would have to be worth 285% of the value of the arena to pay the same property taxes. So a square block worth $1.5 billion? That is a lot of condos!

polishavenger
Dec 1, 2014, 5:08 PM
You know what fosters residential development? Grocery stores. A grocery store will bring in way more residential development than a stadium.




Generally it goes the other way around. Dont know too many grocery operators who build before the roof tops are around to support the business.

bt04ku
Dec 1, 2014, 5:17 PM
IIRC the Habs. Pay $8.5M a year in property tax on the Bell Centre.

MasterG
Dec 1, 2014, 5:21 PM
The more that I follow this discussion the more I am unsure about where it should go or is likely to go.

If the Flames pulled an Ottawa and did the whole Cross-Iron thing, what would the city lose? Certainly some immediate tax revenue, the ability to have the downtown games and stadium concerts as well as the associated spin-offs. The Flames would never go for a suburban location, except for a negotiation ploy to get tax support for their preferred downtown location. The demand for venue space in the core is so much higher, particularly important when such a significant amount of revenue comes from concerts and the like. Ottawa has proven the exurb stadium business model is a hard one to implement successfully due to this and other reasons.

On the other hand, if they don't put the stadium in the core, it keeps and frees up land in the inner city, which is a huge opportunity for other development. Stadium districts seem to overstate the amount of retail and street-life they support relative to their cost, so using the land for a more efficient use might be better for the area overall.

Hypothetically, if the stadium doesn't go downtown could we see a push for more dedicated concert venue in the core instead? Something to fill the gap between the 1,000 capacity venues and the stadium-sized 8-15,000 capacity stadium venue. I feel this is a size that is missing from Calgary's venue space.

fusili
Dec 1, 2014, 5:28 PM
Unless tax is abated, it would pay commercial property tax at a much higher rate. The condos displaced would have to be worth 285% of the value of the arena to pay the same property taxes. So a square block worth $1.5 billion? That is a lot of condos!

Fair. In their current location, do you know if they pay full commercial tax mill rate?

Generally it goes the other way around. Dont know too many grocery operators who build before the roof tops are around to support the business.

Not entirely. Look at proposals for Beltline/Centre City grocery stores, you are seeing a lot of grocers try and capture the market before others get in. They may run a loss for a few years, but will capture that value as population increases. They also benefit a lot from drive home commuters from downtown. Do you think Erlton has enough residents to support a grocer? Beltline has 20K people, but has 4 grocery stores (general rule is 10K people per grocery store).

suburbia
Dec 1, 2014, 5:30 PM
Even if there is a fair bit of potential at Fire Park, is there a need to unlock this potential at this point in time? With East Village undergoing an urban renewal program and places like West Village and East 17th holding more potential than Fire Park, why should the City be directing renewal to Fire Park? How is this in Calgary's best interest?

Full Mountain's comments in support of Firepark were interesting in this regard. Downtown momentum in Calgary is well past what it is in Edmonton, and therefore throwing in an arena / stadium into say West Village will displace much. Going to Firepark and Max Bell lands is a better fit from a City perspective, as it does now displace existing momentum, while it also does check off the box of renewal. These two elements make it much more palatable for the City, and you can't really skirt the city for a project of this size no matter how you cut it. This proposal would be as much about realpolitik as creating new value and not displacing existing momentum.

For those of you dreading what the area currently is, all the more reason for major renewal. You need to think of what it could be.

Over time, with a commercial, residential, entertainment flanked promenade, it will fit well with a rejuvenated international avenue, and fits well with the performance facility that has already been planned for 17th atop of the deerfoot ridge.

Very greatful for Full Mountain's post(s) on this, as while I had talked about all this and more previously, I think it is now getting a little bit of more thoughtful and constructive thought.

MalcolmTucker
Dec 1, 2014, 5:32 PM
Fair. In their current location, do you know if they pay full commercial tax mill rate?

Edit due to research: I don't think they pay property taxes for the Saddledome, besides the provincial portion. It is a complicated deal, with money flowing back and forth.

All from the Calgary Herald:

What I can find from 1994:


TERMS OF THE DEALS

* $12 million in national infrastructure money from the city, province and federal government to go to renovations of the 'Dome, including luxury private boxes. The Saddledome Foundation pays the city's $4 million share.

* Flames and Foundation split the cost of 41 luxury boxes and more than 1,000 club seats.

* Flames pay the Stampede Board $20 million to get out of existing lease, which expires in 2002. The Flames then assume full management rights to the Saddledome.

* The Stampede Board agrees to use the $20 million to pay down its $34 million debt.

* The Flames now get revenue from areas such as parking and concessions.

* Flames also agree to contribute $14.5 million to amateur sport over the duration of the new 20-year lease.

* A ticket surcharge to help pay the municipal portion of the education levy has been talked about, but the Flames would prefer not to do it. As of now, there are no plans for surcharges in Calgary.

* Seating capacity: 20,230



and


The Saddledome, and other publicly-owned facilities, had previously been exempt from the education portion of property taxes until a change was made to the Municipal Government Act in June.

The last point is that when a city asset is leased, the city is forced to pay the education property tax portion of the tax as a levy compared to the value of the lease.

From 2000:

algary aldermen say the Flames are an important city tenant and they're willing to at least listen to changes team owners will seek in their arena agreement.

As reported in Saturday's Herald, team owners are looking for an agreement similar to the Edmonton Oilers' deal with the Skyreach Centre, which Flames governor Harley Hotchkiss said is up to $5 million less a year than his team's agreement with the Saddledome.

Hotchkiss pointed out the Oilers benefit from $1.3 million in lottery funding, pay $200,000 less in provincial education tax and are not responsible for building operations.

Six years ago, the Flames demanded and received control of Saddledome operations, including maintenance and capital improvement in the arena, in return for all revenues from renting out the facilities.

That agreement lasts until 2014.

The Flames are now talking to the Saddledome Foundation, a non- profit group that acts as leaseholder for the city-owned facility, about changing their arrangement.



2001:

The Saddledome Foundation stickhandled its way Monday into an annual $1.3 million in funding after convincing city council to transfer capital maintenance costs from the Calgary Flames to taxpayers.

But the deal didn't pass without heated discussion, with one alderman calling it a "bailout."

Changes to the licence and management agreement between the foundation and the team were approved 9-5 following hours of debate by aldermen and a passionate speech by Mayor Al Duerr, who pleaded with his colleagues to deal with the issue from a fiscal point of view -- not an emotional one.

The agreement doesn't guarantee the National Hockey League team will remain in Calgary. It passes the issue back to the province, which has turned down a matching $1.3 million request from the Saddledome Foundation to cover operational costs that were previously the responsibility of the Flames.

That request is over and above the $1 million the Alberta government pledged to the team last week as part of a lottery program, said a Flames official.

"It's not for me to say," Michael Holditch, Flames vice- president of finance, said when asked if the new lease agreement secures the hockey team's future in Calgary.

"That's not to say we're not grateful. This is an encouraging sign."

The foundation, which will need to have its capital budget approved annually, first asked the city last week to approve changes to the lease agreement and relieve the Flames of their capital maintenance responsibilities.

The money will help offset a $3.9-million deficit the team incurs on the building each year. An additional $1.3 million will come from a surcharge on hockey and other event tickets and it's hoped the rest will come from the province.

The foundation presented a report Monday showing the money will go this year to expenses such as roof repairs, wiring upgrades and stairwell restoration.

However, the report did not provide a breakdown of where the dollars will be spent over the next five years, a point that troubled at least one alderman.

"I said last week -- and I'll say it again today -- we're not being asked for $1.3 million, we're being asked for $6.5 million over a five-year program," said Ald. Dave Bronconnier, adding that, like any other business, it should be up to the Flames to deal with their financial problems on their own.

Bronconnier said he is tired of threats the Flames will leave town.

"I'll be damned if I'll sit here and be brow-beaten," added Ald. John Schmal.

"It's a bailout and all I hear is the threat if you don't cough up, we might leave," said Schmal, adding this opens the door for the city's other lease agreements, as well as additional requests by the foundation.

"The team can come back in another two years and ask for an adjustment, and any other business can now come forward and ask for compensation."

However, other aldermen, including Joanne Kerr, argued the city has an obligation to maintain the Saddledome like it does any other city-owned facility, including the convention centre and Performing Arts Centre. Kerr pointed out the millions of dollars the city spent on the Max Bell Arena after former Stampeders owner Larry Ryckman reneged on promises to make structural upgrades.

"This is not an attempt by the City of Calgary to bail out the Flames," said Kerr. "The Flames haven't asked us for a nickel."

She pointed out the city would lose $250,000 in tax revenues and the $750,000 the team puts back into amateur sport, while Stampede Park would lose thousands more in parking revenue if its largest Saddledome tenant is lost.

Yet another alderman argued the city has no legal recourse if the team pulls up stakes and breaks its lease.

City lawyers say a loophole in the original deal allows the Flames to break the contract without penalty because of changes the province made to the Municipal Government Act as it relates to the payment of education taxes.

The changes were made after the agreement was signed.

Saddledome Foundation chairman Rick Smith said Monday's decision sends a message to the Flames that Calgarians are grateful to have an NHL franchise and recognize the difficulties they experience in operating a team in this market.

"We (the city) own the building and I think it sends a message that we are interested in maintaining that building at a world- class level," said Smith, adding he's unsure whether the deal will keep the team in Calgary.

"This is just one piece to a big puzzle, and it's all we could do as custodians of the building. But certainly I think it does go a long way to show we as a city support having a major tenant in the building."

A clawback provision was also approved as part of the "temporary" changes to the lease agreement that will see 20 per cent of any profits from Saddledome operations given to the city.

The changes are also contingent on an Aug. 1 deadline on the conclusion of funding arrangements between the Flames and the province.

fusili
Dec 1, 2014, 5:45 PM
I don't think they pay any tax or rent for the Saddledome but I could be wrong. They pay all expenses though.

What a steal!!

Wooster
Dec 1, 2014, 5:54 PM
1995 deal for Saddledome to pay business tax and education portion of property tax, but not municipal portion of property tax. Assessed at $80m.

fusili
Dec 1, 2014, 6:00 PM
1995 deal for Saddledome to pay business tax and education portion of property tax, but not municipal portion of property tax. Assessed at $80m.

Well that's a massive subsidy.

MalcolmTucker
Dec 1, 2014, 6:01 PM
What a steal!!

Well, the city owns it, why would they tax themselves?

fusili
Dec 1, 2014, 6:05 PM
Well, the city owns it, why would they tax themselves?

Why wouldn't they charge triple net rent from Flames?

MalcolmTucker
Dec 1, 2014, 6:06 PM
Why wouldn't they charge triple net rent from Flames?

Because the Flames would leave and the city would be stuck maintaining a stranded asset seems to be the current from the old articles.

fusili
Dec 1, 2014, 6:37 PM
Because the Flames would leave and the city would be stuck maintaining a stranded asset seems to be the current from the old articles.

Yeah, good plan. Leave a large, dedicated market and move to Tulsa or some crap.

DizzyEdge
Dec 1, 2014, 8:25 PM
I think in my opinion firepark would be ok, but only as part of a complete giant development, so that the after-game bars and restaurants are built along with the area/stadium. If not then I think it will suck.