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
Aug 21, 2015, 12:24 AM
While I agree with Ken King that things which are hard to come by are usually more worthwhile, proposing such a complex facility in an area wrought with planning issues may be biting off more than we can chew. My suggestion would be to forget about West Village and the associated CRL funds. It would remove $240m from the budget but let's take a look at that budget.

If we can assume that the City will eventually be able to contribute $200m toward a fieldhouse, a $250m ticket tax funded by private debt is feasible and CS&E can contribute at least $200m, there is $650m in the kitty. Splitting the budget in half would only provide $325m for each facility and that may be insufficient as Rogers Place cost $450m. However, the City of Calgary isn't as desperate for redevelopment as the City of Edmonton so the CS&E need to make some compromises. If they settled on budgeting $350m per venue and fronted another $50m out of pocket, I think we could get somewhere by splitting the arena and fieldhouse across two locations outside of the West Village.

nick.flood
Aug 21, 2015, 12:32 AM
delete

Design-mind
Aug 21, 2015, 1:17 AM
He's very careful about this. It will be a key factor in his re-election I'm sure.

The 'Spendshi' monikers aren't going away any time soon, and if he doesn't fight for more private equity, he's going to get raked over the coals.

I think now that this is out he will get raked over the coals either way. With the downturn in the market and an elaborate multi million dollar proposal on the table he will have a tight rope wire to walk. Which ever way this goes there will be unhappy voters.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 21, 2015, 4:03 AM
That is my assumption, as well. But CS&E also owns the other teams playing out of the facilities and would result in their prices going up, too.

That leaves out concerts and events, though. Absent from KK's presentation was who will be managing the facilities.

I would assume they would like a head lease like with the Saddledome, where they cover operating and maintenance but pay only nominal rent. Also, I was thinking about the CRL structure and the fight the Flames lost with the province over paying the education property tax on the Saddledome in the 1990s. In effect a CRL would take that tax revenue (since it is incremental) and direct it to paying the loan for the building. Ingenious.

McMurph
Aug 21, 2015, 2:28 PM
I think now that this is out he will get raked over the coals either way. With the downturn in the market and an elaborate multi million dollar proposal on the table he will have a tight rope wire to walk. Which ever way this goes there will be unhappy voters.

I think he'll be OK. His position has been consistent and it seems to be the majority position on council. He'll probably be happy to continue to take a conservative line, but then very clearly let council make the ultimate decision. The biggest risk is when a mayor becomes a major booster of an expensive and contentious project (like Nenshi was with the airport tunnel). That's not going to be a problem for him with the Flames.

craner
Aug 21, 2015, 7:01 PM
Some great modifications to the overall WV site plan posted here, particularly RyLucky & Nick Flood. I really like the idea of moving the complex as far south as possible to open up the area adjacent to the river and putting the facilities closer to the LRT station. This has the added benefit of not restricting the height of the north side of the stadium which would allow a more equal split of capacity on each side of the field. I also like the ideas of utilizing the existing Millenium plaza and covering Bow trail underground. If we have to dig out and remove a bunch of contaminated dirt anyway, why not burry BT ?

O-tacular
Aug 21, 2015, 7:43 PM
At this point I don't think this stadium will be built for another 10 years, and definitely not in this form. It's too unpalatable. I just signed a petition floating around on Facebook against funding this thing. It's far short but aiming for 10,000 signatures. It's just not saleable to the public in this economic and political climate.

I like Nick Flood's placement much more than what's being proposed. Unfortunately I doubt the Flames own that land and I think taking over part of Millenium Park will be a problem.

Innersoul1
Aug 21, 2015, 8:05 PM
At this point I don't think this stadium will be built for another 10 years, and definitely not in this form. It's too unpalatable. I just signed a petition floating around on Facebook against funding this thing. It's far short but aiming for 10,000 signatures. It's just not saleable to the public in this economic and political climate.

I like Nick Flood's placement much more than what's being proposed. Unfortunately I doubt the Flames own that land and I think taking over part of Millenium Park will be a problem.

If it's not saleable to the public then why bother? I am not disagreeing with you. I don't think it will be built as we see it.

The Urbanist
Aug 21, 2015, 8:33 PM
At this point I don't think this stadium will be built for another 10 years, and definitely not in this form. It's too unpalatable. I just signed a petition floating around on Facebook against funding this thing. It's far short but aiming for 10,000 signatures. It's just not saleable to the public in this economic and political climate.

I like Nick Flood's placement much more than what's being proposed. Unfortunately I doubt the Flames own that land and I think taking over part of Millenium Park will be a problem.

AFAIK, the Flames do not currently own any of the land in the West Village and plan to lease it from the City of Calgary. I think Nick's scheme has a very interesting programming element. Millennium Park currently hosts the odd concert/festival event. Why shouldn't they incorporate sports entertainment into this space?:yes:

RyLucky
Aug 21, 2015, 9:09 PM
Some great modifications to the overall WV site plan posted here, particularly RyLucky & Nick Flood. I really like the idea of moving the complex as far south as possible to open up the area adjacent to the river and putting the facilities closer to the LRT station. This has the added benefit of not restricting the height of the north side of the stadium which would allow a more equal split of capacity on each side of the field. I also like the ideas of utilizing the existing Millenium plaza and covering Bow trail underground. If we have to dig out and remove a bunch of contaminated dirt anyway, why not burry BT ?

I am curious about just how much dirt needs to be removed and what is to be done with it. Also, what the boundaries of contamination? It seems that any multi-level development would remove enough dirt to make a building safe to inhabit, no?

Because Sunalta is so high (the walkway over the CPR looks to be elevated at least 8-9 m and that's below the station), and because it makes no difference where fans enter the stadium/fieldhouse (the highest bleachers of both stadiums look to be even higher than Sunalta), it seems to me that Bow Trail might not even need to be lowered, just realigned.

Of course excavation for parking and ramp access is another story (pun intended). Where should the Flames/Stamps locate utility displaced by cutting a road into the building? There's plenty of space, especially with added FAR further south, and especially in areas that would be less desirable for residential and commercial development (against CPR and busy corridors). If it were up to me, I'd also put parking underground along serve parking access from both EB and WB Bow Trail.

Then, it would be natural to have some kind of public walkway along the edge of the stadium and over Bow Trail WB to serve the community. I've said it before, but I think 19th st bridge is a major piece of this puzzle.

I think a major problem is that the Flames are asking the city to take all the risk, but have the least input. He who holds the CRL shall decide where to put things and how much land to develop.

McMurph
Aug 21, 2015, 9:57 PM
Does anyone on the forum know what has to be done with creosote contaminated dirt after it has been excavated? Does it have to go to a place like Swan Hills or can it be contained and buried somewhere else? Or can we just truck it to Domtar's HQ and fill their parkade with it?

I'm not a fan of the Millennium Park option. I'm not even sure it's feasible without a weird fuck-up of 14th. I'd rather see it in the same general place as their proposal, but with Bow Trail realigned as a two-way grand boulevard along the 9th Ave ROW. The road along the north of the site could then be downsized to something far more sensible for a river promenade. I don't know how 6th Ave becomes WB 9th Ave.

The fact that Ken King doesn't seem to give a shit about city building but is still willing to ask so much of the city has completely eroded my support for any Flames plan. He budgets a quarter of the cost to a questionable use of CRL but then sounds like he doesn't even know how it works ("the heavy lifting on that file falls to CMLC"). Maybe that's a weird way of being humble. To me it sounds like he's just as much of an ass as Daryl Katz.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 21, 2015, 10:05 PM
Cochrane's Domtar site had the minor contamination cleaned up in-situ, with more concentrated contaminated soil being shipped to an unnamed central government facility, but that was just a drying site according to their local newspaper. Cochrane's cleanup was funded by the developer, but the developer got tax concessions in addition to infrastructure improvements (an extra rail crossing, streetscape improvements) funded through a CRL.

The Fisher Account
Aug 21, 2015, 11:57 PM
I'd really like to know what the % of arena/stadium proposals that get shared with the public ultimately get built.

Despite public opposition and all that, hard to see this not happening. Seems cities all tend to buckle to these franchises eventually

craner
Aug 22, 2015, 1:44 AM
If I have to look at f'n basketball hoops off to the left of the endzone in the new McMahon... it'll only be once! lol

I'm still on the fence about this thing being attached, and I definitely don't like the stadium in those "concept" pictures.!

I agree. This is a major concern of mine with trying to combine the stadium with a fieldhouse.

Daver
Aug 22, 2015, 2:08 AM
I agree. This is a major concern of mine with trying to combine the stadium with a fieldhouse.

Kill it bad location, bad design, no support, lousy presentation....everything about this stinks....Calgary can do better!
......Start over

However a Multiplex would save a crap load of operational dollars...yes its small town idea....but then make it massive and functional... Ive been involved on many multiplexes ...THEY WORK make this one big

Socguy
Aug 22, 2015, 2:58 AM
Does anyone on the forum know what has to be done with creosote contaminated dirt after it has been excavated? Does it have to go to a place like Swan Hills or can it be contained and buried somewhere else? Or can we just truck it to Domtar's HQ and fill their parkade with it?



You can always hire an environmental company to come in with a unit like this to evaporate then incinerate hydrocarbons from soil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUZ724XCzog

As for what to do with the contaminated water, I'm not entirely sure.

Riise
Aug 22, 2015, 3:47 AM
I'd really like to know what the % of arena/stadium proposals that get shared with the public ultimately get built.

Despite public opposition and all that, hard to see this not happening. Seems cities all tend to buckle to these franchises eventually

It's funny that the term World Class is being thrown about because aside from those in the States, do World Class cities really buckle to professional sports clubs/teams?

Domestically, did the Cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver bend to the will of the Habs, Laughs and Canucks? Internationally, did the Île-de-France, Madrid and London Borough of Islington get bent over the barrel by PSG, Real Madrid and Arsenal?

Socguy
Aug 22, 2015, 3:57 AM
I'd really like to know what the % of arena/stadium proposals that get shared with the public ultimately get built.

Despite public opposition and all that, hard to see this not happening. Seems cities all tend to buckle to these franchises eventually

You may be right. Owners are well funded and do things like threaten to move teams till they get their way. Still, I'm optimistic. Calgary is well positioned to say no. If you compare this to the Edmonton situation (who IMHO had a much better case for building their arena) we see one crucial difference: the Mayor.

Mandel made that arena his baby. He wouldn't let it die. He fought for years even after it was voted down half a dozen times. He believed so strongly in that project that he put everything on the line to get it done and still it only happened by the thinnest of margins.

Calgary has the Mayor not on side, (speculation being that they waited till the Mayor was away before announcing) no money, a backlog of major projects that are far more deserving of funding, an existing plan for the site that's probably better use anyway, and most voters implicitly understanding that this would be a 'luxury' project. Nice to have but in no way, shape or form a necessity.

There's also a reasonable chance that if the city stands firm for the next decade or so, KK might give up and actually build a new arena himself.

RyLucky
Aug 22, 2015, 4:47 AM
I'm not a fan of the Millennium Park option. I'm not even sure it's feasible without a weird fuck-up of 14th. I'd rather see it in the same general place as their proposal, but with Bow Trail realigned as a two-way grand boulevard along the 9th Ave ROW. The road along the north of the site could then be downsized to something far more sensible for a river promenade. I don't know how 6th Ave becomes WB 9th Ave.


Maybe something like this...

http://i.imgur.com/9gLXtmN.png

Use the existing EB bridges over 14th for WB traffic, and make a new crossing for EB traffic south over 14th St.

The current tunnel under 14th could become 2-way or a park/riverwalk space.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 22, 2015, 5:07 AM
It's funny that the term World Class is being thrown about because aside from those in the States, do World Class cities really buckle to professional sports clubs/teams?

Domestically, did the Cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver bend to the will of the Habs, Laughs and Canucks? Internationally, did the Île-de-France, Madrid and London Borough of Islington get bent over the barrel by PSG, Real Madrid and Arsenal?

Many UK projects (Arsenal (http://www.arsenal.com/155/unhoused-import-pages/latest-stadium-news/arsenal-confirms-funding-for-stadium-project), Aberdeen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Aberdeen_Stadium#Funding)via a quick search) finance new stadiums partly through major upzoning of their existing urban sites and redevelopment while they move elsewhere. (if it was an office block moving, I doubt London's crazy zoning restrictions would be so nearly as relaxed) Arsenal also had a land swap (moving a waste transfer facility to a less valuable and smaller site) to secure their land. Manchester City (http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/manchester-model-shows-how-west-ham-can-be-settled-tenants-6452393.html)leases their stadium from the city (it was built for the 2002 commonwealth games with lottery money) and cross subsidizes team operations with profits from commercial development of the surrounding area that was developed with tax concessions (http://untold-arsenal.com/archives/28366), FC United of Manchester (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadhurst_Park#Funding) (a much smaller stadium) was built with half government funds.

Real Madrid's proposed stadium renovations are being investigated for illegal state suppor (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1287_en.htm)t by conducting a super advantageous land swap to build a shopping mall (a subsidy estimated at €200 million (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/council-deny-breaking-law-in-disputed-22m-real-madrid-land-deal-8560904.html)). Also, they are technically owned by the community through shares so the Spanish Government reduces their tax rate by 50 points.

PSG, OL, Nice and Saint-Etienne pay pretty minimal rent on their stadiums. (http://frenchfootballweekly.com/2014/07/10/the-marseille-stadium-mystery/) Lille leases its €282 million stadium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_Pierre-Mauroy#Cost_and_financing) for €4.2m a year (http://frenchfootballweekly.com/2014/07/10/the-marseille-stadium-mystery/).

So yes, state support is very common.

Riise
Aug 22, 2015, 6:14 AM
Many UK projects (Arsenal (http://www.arsenal.com/155/unhoused-import-pages/latest-stadium-news/arsenal-confirms-funding-for-stadium-project), Aberdeen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Aberdeen_Stadium#Funding)via a quick search) finance new stadiums partly through major upzoning of their existing urban sites and redevelopment while they move elsewhere. (if it was an office block moving, I doubt London's crazy zoning restrictions would be so nearly as relaxed) Arsenal also had a land swap (moving a waste transfer facility to a less valuable and smaller site) to secure their land. Manchester City (http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/manchester-model-shows-how-west-ham-can-be-settled-tenants-6452393.html)leases their stadium from the city (it was built for the 2002 commonwealth games with lottery money) and cross subsidizes team operations with profits from commercial development of the surrounding area that was developed with tax concessions (http://untold-arsenal.com/archives/28366), FC United of Manchester (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadhurst_Park#Funding) (a much smaller stadium) was built with half government funds.

Real Madrid's proposed stadium renovations are being investigated for illegal state suppor (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1287_en.htm)t by conducting a super advantageous land swap to build a shopping mall (a subsidy estimated at €200 million (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/council-deny-breaking-law-in-disputed-22m-real-madrid-land-deal-8560904.html)). Also, they are technically owned by the community through shares so the Spanish Government reduces their tax rate by 50 points.

PSG, OL, Nice and Saint-Etienne pay pretty minimal rent on their stadiums. (http://frenchfootballweekly.com/2014/07/10/the-marseille-stadium-mystery/) Lille leases its €282 million stadium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_Pierre-Mauroy#Cost_and_financing) for €4.2m a year (http://frenchfootballweekly.com/2014/07/10/the-marseille-stadium-mystery/).

So yes, state support is very common.

As land use districts are not used in the British Isles, neither upzoning nor crazy zoning regulations takes place. Also, MCFC are using a legacy stadium and did not force a move away from Maine Road. In addition to this, FC United of Manchester only entered the Football League this season and are still only semi-professional.

Regardless, how many of the European clubs noted between us threatened to move? While these clubs undoubtedly exert strong levels of influence, it is nowhere close to what takes places in the States and to what I presume The Fisher Account was referring.

Essentially, you don't have to get bent over the barrel and fairness can be achieved.

shogged
Aug 22, 2015, 7:25 AM
I would like to see the city call the bluff and force the team to "move" lol

Where are they gonna go? Very few viable locations left that would be on par with Calgary, especially if expansion teams end up in Quebec and Seattle in the next few years.

Bigtime
Aug 22, 2015, 2:31 PM
There is no other market the Flames could move to that would allow them to be as profitable as they are now (or into the future).

Easy bluff to call on our part.

RyLucky
Aug 22, 2015, 2:43 PM
It's true. Even if the Flames walked off, it would be a dream come true for 5-6 teams who would love to play in the 'Dome and instantly see a 25% bump in their valuation and manifold increase of their operating income. (Mostly teams originally attracted to their market by lucrative government loans and fancy arena deals)

craner
Aug 22, 2015, 5:25 PM
The Flames haven't mentioned anything about moving - have they?

The Fisher Account
Aug 22, 2015, 5:29 PM
The Flames haven't mentioned anything about moving - have they?

No, and they won't.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 22, 2015, 6:10 PM
I wonder what the path is. If the Flames opened the kimono to a credible third party that showed the profitability of the organization today (my guess would be somewhat above marginal over the business cycle) with an accounting of current state support, would that help or hinder?

The operating assumption of many is that the arena/Flames could self finance an arena and make a profit. Does destroying that assumption leave people more open to state support or more willing to contemplate a eventual move when the Saddledome inevitably needs a rehab not to improve things but just to continue to exist.

lineman
Aug 22, 2015, 7:20 PM
I would like to see the city call the bluff and force the team to "move" lol

Where are they gonna go? Very few viable locations left that would be on par with Calgary, especially if expansion teams end up in Quebec and Seattle in the next few years.

Only Las Vegas and Quebec City bothered to apply for an expansion team.

Chadillaccc
Aug 22, 2015, 7:25 PM
Exactly. Seems like the only thing they worked on was their song and dance. Yesterday on the CBC, they mentioned that a listener told them it reminded him of the mono-rail episode from The Simpsons.

That is actually the perfect analogy for this.

H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 22, 2015, 7:35 PM
I think part of the reason for the big announcement (with little details) was to shift some focus and pressure on to the City to now act on the proposal and start getting it going. Perhaps KK and the ownership group think that by getting the public to pressure the City into getting this done sooner rather than later, that the City will cave on some issues (like funding) to get the complex built.

From what I've read and the people I've spoken to, however, it seems that if this was the case that their plan might backfire. I get a strong impression nobody wants our tax dollars padding the wallets of the rich owners to build this arena.

McMurph
Aug 22, 2015, 7:59 PM
I think part of the reason for the big announcement (with little details) was to shift some focus and pressure on to the City to now act on the proposal and start getting it going. Perhaps KK and the ownership group think that by getting the public to pressure the City into getting this done sooner rather than later, that the City will cave on some issues (like funding) to get the complex built.

From what I've read and the people I've spoken to, however, it seems that if this was the case that their plan might backfire. I get a strong impression nobody wants our tax dollars padding the wallets of the rich owners to build this arena.

I can't imagine that's the case. If the Flames want public money to go into this they'll need the city's help in pressuring the public to support it, not the other way around. Although who knows what they were thinking. For rich and successful businessmen with lots of time and loads of money the amateurishness and incompleteness of their proposal is amazing.

Denscity
Aug 22, 2015, 8:48 PM
It's funny that the term World Class is being thrown about because aside from those in the States, do World Class cities really buckle to professional sports clubs/teams?

Domestically, did the Cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver bend to the will of the Habs, Laughs and Canucks? Internationally, did the Île-de-France, Madrid and London Borough of Islington get bent over the barrel by PSG, Real Madrid and Arsenal?

Just heard this morning that Rogers Arena in Vancouver was built with 100% private money. The first arena to do so since Maple Leaf Gardens waaaayy back in the day.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 22, 2015, 8:59 PM
Just heard this morning that Rogers Arena in Vancouver was built with 100% private money. The first arena to do so since Maple Leaf Gardens waaaayy back in the day.

Yes, but it promptly was sold at a loss. As was Montreal's, and Ottawa's (even though it had a subsidy). And even after normal inflation, GM Place/Rogers was built for $232 million in current dollars. If you could build something similar today for that much the Flames would just do it themselves!

From our friend, now Mayor Iveson:
http://i.imgur.com/gSlrg74.png
http://www.doniveson.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Katz-Group-Canadian-Private-Arena-Funding.pdf

Socguy
Aug 22, 2015, 10:07 PM
I wonder what the path is. If the Flames opened the kimono to a credible third party that showed the profitability of the organization today (my guess would be somewhat above marginal over the business cycle) with an accounting of current state support, would that help or hinder?

The operating assumption of many is that the arena/Flames could self finance an arena and make a profit. Does destroying that assumption leave people more open to state support or more willing to contemplate a eventual move when the Saddledome inevitably needs a rehab not to improve things but just to continue to exist.

Flames are currently willing to invest 200M of their own money into this proposal. Flames could also negotiate another 200M from private lenders to be paid back through a user pay 'ticket tax'. 400M will build them a new arena with not a dime of public money contributed.

Now in order to pay back their $200M original investment in 20years, the new arena needs to increase their current profit by about 10M a year to about 32M/y which would put them in the range of what the Bruins make. Could they do that? Probably if they kept the new building humming with new events.

Still, even if the flames can't manage an extra 10M/y in a new building, it's difficult to imagine starving other city projects by contributing public money to a new arena when the Flames are taking in ~20M/y while they play in the Saddledome.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 22, 2015, 10:33 PM
I don't think $400 million would build an arena any better than the current one besides having a better roof and not being 30+ years old.

Rogers Place to our north came in at $480 million (Feb. 20014) without the winter garden skywalk, the practice/community rink, the LRT pedestrian link, or the land it sits on (http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/projects_redevelopment/the-agreement.aspx).

Riise
Aug 22, 2015, 11:52 PM
The operating assumption of many is that the arena/Flames could self finance an arena and make a profit. Does destroying that assumption leave people more open to state support or more willing to contemplate a eventual move when the Saddledome inevitably needs a rehab not to improve things but just to continue to exist.

This is actually a great scenario to consider. I use to be 100% against any subsidization of professional sports clubs/franchises but there are cases where certain amounts would be acceptable. If CS&E could not make it work on their own and needed a partner to build an arena, I may find it acceptable for the City to become a partner. However, the money contributed by the City would need to fight for its place on the funded projects list and the City would share in any profit made by the venue. Share the cost, share the profit.

MichaelS
Aug 23, 2015, 5:06 AM
I don't think $400 million would build an arena any better than the current one besides having a better roof and not being 30+ years old.

Rogers Place to our north came in at $480 million (Feb. 20014) without the winter garden skywalk, the practice/community rink, the LRT pedestrian link, or the land it sits on (http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/projects_redevelopment/the-agreement.aspx).

Wouldn't solving those two problems be the whole point of a new arena?

Blue_Cypress
Aug 23, 2015, 7:40 AM
Flames are currently willing to invest 200M of their own money into this proposal. Flames could also negotiate another 200M from private lenders to be paid back through a user pay 'ticket tax'. 400M will build them a new arena with not a dime of public money contributed.


There's not a snowballs' chance in hell of building even a standalone arena for 400 million. Even if they don't pay a dime for land remediation.

KK should have moved on this a few years ago. Now I worry that the timing has soured and will scuttle efforts at making this happen.

Socguy
Aug 23, 2015, 4:06 PM
I don't think $400 million would build an arena any better than the current one besides having a better roof and not being 30+ years old.

Rogers Place to our north came in at $480 million (Feb. 20014) without the winter garden skywalk, the practice/community rink, the LRT pedestrian link, or the land it sits on (http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/projects_redevelopment/the-agreement.aspx).

You can always tinker with the numbers. How about the flames contribute 250 and the ticket tax for 250? Now you've got 500M.

Besides, what kind of arena are you looking for? If you don't want to settle for anything but a showpiece, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Socguy
Aug 23, 2015, 4:17 PM
There's not a snowballs' chance in hell of building even a standalone arena for 400 million. Even if they don't pay a dime for land remediation.



The Rogers arena in Vancouver came in at $160M (225M cost adjusted for today's dollars.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Arena

I'm not opposed to the city/province cleaning up the land since they're going to have to do it anyway.

McMurph
Aug 23, 2015, 4:59 PM
I'm not opposed to the city/province cleaning up the land since they're going to have to do it anyway.

I'm still not sure why Domtar was able to walk away from it.

Clearly the public is on the hook for the clean up costs, but cleaning it up is equivalent to an investment in the future use of the land. Before any of my governments spend 100's of millions of our dollars I want them to make sure that we're getting good value out of it. The arena district might be the best investment. The original WV plan might be. I dunno. I'd like a shiny new arena, field house and stadium as much as anyone, but I'm sure as hell not going to take Ken King's word on what is the best use of public money.

monocle
Aug 23, 2015, 5:05 PM
... the amateurishness and incompleteness of their proposal is amazing.

It has to be by design, doesn't it? Throw a big idea out, not totally knowing the reaction... tweak, polish and sharpen as needed so (as nick flood said) everybody gets to feel they've added to the process.

If they had hired a starchetect and provided a final product, it's a take it or leave it. Doing it this way, they can gauge the situation and "work collaboratively" with everybody, allowing for a lot of flexibility.

I'm certain this thread is being looked at by at least some of the CS&E team...hopefully they can work collaboratively with the City and fix Bow as suggested. It makes way too much sense to push everything as far south as possible, running the new Bow Tr through it somehow, while winning some public support in the process.

Socguy
Aug 23, 2015, 5:52 PM
I'm still not sure why Domtar was able to walk away from it.



It is infuriating isn't it? Different time, different rules.

RyLucky
Aug 23, 2015, 6:00 PM
I'm curious about what a strictly private Plan B ($200M private + $250M tictax) might leave them...

MTS (2004) in Winnipeg was $134M.
Barclay (2015) in Brooklyn was $1B.
Consol (2010) in Pittsburg was $321M.
Prudential (2007) in NJ was $375M.
Gila River (2003) in Arizona was $220M.
Detroit Event Centre (2017) is $450M.
Edmonton (2016) is $480M.
Videotron Ctr (2012) in Quebec was $370M.
MGM (2016) in Las Vegas is $375M.

..But none of those function as a football stadium as well...

Tim Hortons (2014) in Hamilton (22, 500 cap.) was $146M.
IG Field (2013) in Winnipeg (30k) was $210M.
Moncton Track Stadium (2010) with 10k capacity was apparently only $27M.
Suputo Montreal (2008), 20k cap, was $47M.
BMO Field Toronto (2007), 31k cap, was $183M including renos.

At first glance, it seems to me that we'd be looking at ~$0.5B just for the hockey arena - so perhaps the owner group could fund this part privately with help from a ticket tax, espeically considering it has the highest potential revenue.

It also seems that the city could buy several $50M amateur sport field houses with capacity for 10k spectators each for the price of creating a new football stadium. Alternatively, the soccer centre 4-field annex cost only $11M, so if the city really wanted to boost amateur sports, they could probably spend $100M for 25-30ish new indoor fields all around the city. That would be a dream come true for CUSA and set Calgary apart from every winter city in the world. The problem is that amateur sports don't need a 30k-spectator stadium, and Stamps fans (or fans of other hypothetical future events) don't need amateur event spaces scattered around the city. Alternatively, we can build another Rocky Ridge Rec Centre (incl library, 25 m 8-lane pool, wave pool, water slides, 2 rinks, 3 gymnasiums, fitness centre, 300 person theatre, running track, etc) for $191 M.

So, is it reasonable for the owners to assume the city might contribute $200 M for a field house? In my opinion, yes*, provided it fulfils a variety of community needs. Would I support building a lindsay-park-esque or rocky-ridge-esque or UC-Kinesiology-ctr-esge rec centre in the west village for $200M? Probably. We need more details concerning what the field house might entail.

I have thoughts on the CRL that I'll include in a second post.

RyLucky
Aug 23, 2015, 6:53 PM
It's the $240M CRL that I have the biggest problem with. If we hope to pay back a levy, we have to use it to attract taxable investment. Here's a question for you economists out there: How much taxable real estate investment, and within how many years, must every dollar of CRL attract assuming today's interest rates? My assumption is that if we invest $240M today, we better expect to earn $240M+interest in taxes from that district within 20-25 years.

The East Village was expected the raise about $1B revenue over 20 years in taxes on a total assessment growth of ~$15B (http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/presentations/2012/webinars/East_Village_Calgary_EN.pdf), something it is well on its way to achieving. It must be noted that the Bow Tower significantly aided this goal. Initially, the CMLC invested just over $0.25B into the EV (a similar number to what the Flames are asking):

-$14M Utilities
-$40M Surface Improvements
-$24M Streetscape/sidewalks
-$7M Parkspace
-$28M cost escalation contingency
-$22M Riverwalk
-$70M for 4th st E underpass (part paid by TIPP)
-$5.5M Heritage Buildings
-$10M Environmental remediation
-$18M Strategic acquisition & Tennant Improv.
-$45M for St Pat Is +bridge
-$70M Central Library
-$50M Riverwalk II & III
-probably others by now...

I don't see the stadium itself achieving the goals of a CRL in the West Willage. More valuable to attracting investment would be community amenities of the field house (already paid by city in their proposal), and road realignment.

Here are some ballpark estimates of how a CRL might be spent in the WV:

-$100M Bow Trail realignment
-$100M new road network
-$100M Strategic Land Acquisition (incl $37M for GSL already purchased)
-$xM remediation
-$70M a 17th St CPR underpass (probably optional)
-$45M Riverwalk IV (from Louise Bridge to Crowchild)
-$30M Bow River pedestrian bridge at 19th St
-$30-60M upgrades to connect Sunalta Station
-$20M Utilities
-$10M a new park
-$10M upgrades for 1-2 at-grade CPR pedestrian/cyclist crossings

Total:~$540M + Remediation, before contingencies and other costs.

That, in my opinion, is near the lower limit of the investment needed to make the neighbourhood livable and accessible. For such a huge investment, one would hope to see a gain of around $20-40B in assessed growth over 20 years. There are also a few other challenges in WV that EV didn't have:
-EV likely has more demand for non-residental assets, which earn back more revenue than residential (i.e. the Bow).
-Some of EV might have developed without help, but virtually all of WV needs upgrades before investment can begin.
-The EV and WV probably have a comparable developable area, but not with 2 giant stadiums using up land. It's worth noting that the EV initially planned for 12 000 new residents, but I think the Flames' plan called for only 7000 to the WV... Really, we ought to be aiming for 15 000+ to earn back that investment, perhaps including Sunalta. In fact, it would definitely be worth exploring where CRL boundaries would be and how independent future CMLC work ought to be from past CMLC work. This area plan would undoubtedly benefit Downtown West End, Sunalta, and Hillhurst (if a bridge is included).

Does that mean that a CRL is off the table for a future WV stadium? Probably not, but a $240M contribution is unlikely, especially if the city were to contribute $200M for a field house. Perhaps, if both the WV and the Stadium were as successful as EV in 10 years, the CMLC could explore investing in elements of the stadium project than might attract new tenants.

However, if the Flames' owners were able to work together with CMLC, there might be other ways they could attain CRL moneys. For instance, a public ramp along the side of the stadium connecting Sunalta LRT is good for everyone (and thus earns them a chunk of the $30-60M that might have been allocated to better connect the station). Hiding as much of Bow Trail and the CPR as possible are also decent CRL goals that a stadium can help achieve (thus earning them a chunk of the $100M for Bow Trail realignment, etc). Given that no type of building short of a stadium can effectively cover a road with only nominal costs and loss of quasi-usable space, this seems like a good thing for any potential CLR involvement to incentivize.

red_179
Aug 23, 2015, 7:19 PM
My thoughts on this:

1. $200 million from the Flames. This is obviously just a starting point for negotiations. Nenshi has made his stance on investment for private profit very well known and I'm sure the Flames have budgeted, internally, that there would be push back for more private investment. Just like any contract negotiation the Flames do with their players, they are simply starting low, while expecting the city to come back asking for more and they will meet somewhere in the middle.

2. Ticket Tax of $250 million. This is a user based fee and is a completely reasonable mechanism for financing part of the cost. Simply enough, everyone has the choice of going to events and contributing (or not contributing) to this tax. So for those that are up in arms about the costs because they don't attend events, this won't affect them at all. The real question to be negotiated is who takes out the loan for this. Conceptually the ticket tax is to cover the principle and interest repayment of the loan and the risk arises if not enough tickets are being sold to repay the loan, causing a default on the loan. If the Flames insist that the city takes out the loan, it would be reasonable for the Flames to indemnify the city for any loss sustained on the potential default of the loan and to provide security to the city. The security could be ownership shares in the Flames or other assets owned personally by the owners or business' controlled by the owners. Any bank would ask for similar security.

3. CRL of $240 million. The feasibility of this will depend on the studies that will be upcoming. The results of these studies will be leverage for the city to negotiate either a higher ticket tax or equity contribution from the Flames. The CRL contribution, of course, should ultimately be only what is viable as per the studies. The Flames should make up the difference either through their own equity or the ticket tax.

4. Fieldhouse Contribution of $200 million. This is something that the city has already themselves set aside as a priority, although it is currently unfunded. In Nenshi's statement he indicated that the capital budget is spoken for until 2018, which is completely fine since CalgaryNext is realistically not going to be completed till 2020 at the absolute earliest (as per Ken King), but I would reckon that 2022-2023 would be more realistic. So what the Flames are lobbying for is that once money becomes available in the 2019 budget, that they prioritize towards a project that they already have indicated is important for the city.

Of note is that this is the only portion of the funding that would come from tax revenue that is not already in existence (the CRL would create new revenue). Currently the tax base that the city can earn revenue from are property owners and are levied through property taxes. I'm not sure how many properties there are in Calgary, but let's say there is a tax base of 300,000 property owners. $200 million divided by 300,000 comes to $666.66/person. This could be levied over a 10 year period coming to about $80/year (accounting for interest and inflation) or $6.66/month (a little more than the price of a latte from Starbucks). This is not a massive sacrifice from tax payers, especially given that the city wants the fieldhouse itself and that basically every CFL stadium has been publicly funded.

5. Creosote Contamination Cleanup. This is already a sunk cost that has been incurred and cannot be recovered from the polluter. It sucks, but there is no point crying about spilled milk, rather we should address this rather than let it sit for another 40 years. Arena or not this needs to get done before it spreads further into the river and into West Hillhurst and people start getting cancer down the line. That would be completely unacceptable. Quite frankly, I would venture to say that a lot of people in Calgary (especially given the amount of migration) probably had no idea that the site was contaminated at all and as a result the government (province and city) have not had sufficient public pressure to mobilize them to get the cleanup done. In all likelihood, waiting longer and letting it spread will entail a more costly cleanup in the future and be an endangerment to public health, so better to get it done now.

McMurph
Aug 23, 2015, 8:42 PM
I agree with all your points, Red, with a couple of provisos:

Your logic on a ticket "tax" is sound, but I can't understand any rationale for the city or province to upfront that portion. The use of the word tax is stupid as it implies a public burden. It's a levy on future attendees of paid for-profit events in a largely private facility. It's the owners' responsibility to front that money and find a way to recoup it.

The remediation of the site is not a "sunk cost". The contamination is a low risk issue until it is developed. Nobody is getting cancer from it. It will have to be cleaned up some day, but it is within the rights of those bearing the costs to decide when they can afford it, how they will do it and how best they can use the land when it's done. Any inner-city land demands the highest-best use for the public. Riverfront land even more so. Having to spend scads of cash to clean it first puts an higher onus on assuring the best subsequent use, not less.

We'll get one shot at the WV lands and it is going to cost us a fortune. CalgaryNext may be it, but it's going to have to way better thought out. Given the size of the "ask" I think the Flames need to be willing to do some of the "heavy lifting" (King's words) on the issues around public financing and city-building.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 23, 2015, 10:49 PM
The best reason why the city would take out the loan is because the Alberta government offers loans with locked in interest rates out to 30 years. The spread between a commercial loan and the Alberta rate would likely be at least 1%, probably more like 2-3%.

Now, it is hard to compare with the market rates for muni bonds since they enjoy tax advantages in the USA, and since they are fixed rate long term they are but a snapshot in time. Given that Yankee Stadium's parking garage bonds are at 4.5% (http://www.municipalbonds.com/bonds/issue/64971PFG5), and the Met's Stadium are at 5% (http://www.municipalbonds.com/bonds/issue/64971PFG5). Washington D.C. are also at 5% (http://www.municipalbonds.com/bonds/issue/25476WBE0).

Wembley Stadium across the pond was financed at a fixed rate of 6.92% in 2008 (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/mar/10/fa-bond-issue-wembley-stadium), and 2.5% above the floating overnight rate in 2002 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-03-10/english-soccer-body-said-to-mull-bond-to-refinance-wembley-stadium-loans). Manchester United is refinancing its 8.375% notes at 3.79%. Important to note though that Manchester United's debt would be first call on equity in the event of a default, and the company is valued at more than its debt right now. (http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2015-05-27/aSl.IFj8q7tY.html)

Alberta Capital Finance Authority debt issued by the Alberta government is estimated at 2.886% for 30 years. It looks like the City can decide whether debt owed by city corporations would contribute to the debt limit or not. (http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2000_255.pdf) To keep it off the books prudently you would need security of some sort. For the ticket tax you could have a revenue guarantee from the lessee, which would become a quasi lease payment, the CRL not so much.

RyLucky
Aug 24, 2015, 3:14 AM
We'll get one shot at the WV lands and it is going to cost us a fortune. CalgaryNext may be it, but it's going to have to way better thought out. Given the size of the "ask" I think the Flames need to be willing to do some of the "heavy lifting" (King's words) on the issues around public financing and city-building.

Well said.

MT, interesting insight & thank you. CRLs seem to come with as much freedom as ambiguity. I'd advocate for a $600ML-ish levy in the WV with funds strictly directed towards projects likely to draw taxable real estate investment, and I'd aim for a 3-5 year start, after a thorough look at CMLC's book, long term market projections, and a clearer picture of city commitments that might lessen the levy. The Stadium will have to wait on the CRL, not the other way around.

CrossedTheTracks
Aug 24, 2015, 4:03 AM
The remediation of the site is not a "sunk cost". The contamination is a low risk issue until it is developed. Nobody is getting cancer from it. It will have to be cleaned up some day, but it is within the rights of those bearing the costs to decide when they can afford it, how they will do it and how best they can use the land when it's done.

I can't claim to assess risk, but it appears that the current containment of the creosote is not totally successful:

"Since 2010, 30 monitoring wells have been drilled in the West Hillhurst community as part of an ongoing testing program. While recent monitoring results are in line with an initial Human Health Risk Assessment study from 2010, a higher amount of creosote has been detected in one of the wells." (source: http://esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests/land-industrial/canada-creosote-site-testing.aspx)

(Though I agree with your sentiment that government ought to make that decision, not sports teams owners...)

O-tacular
Aug 24, 2015, 5:01 PM
I'm shocked no one's brought this up until now.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/water-expert-astonished-by-location-of-calgarynext-along-bow-river

tomthumb2
Aug 24, 2015, 5:11 PM
I don't see this proposal ever happening. Way too much money and way too many hurdles. More likely scenario is they build the arena only in some crap location and drop the stadium idea and maybe sell the Stamps since they are a money loser anyway.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 24, 2015, 5:14 PM
Well, http://i.imgur.com/hdN3ws6.jpg
http://maps.srd.alberta.ca/FloodHazardMobile/viewer.ashx?viewer=Mapping

So that with some reasonable design choices about electrical equipment and being able to seal the outside wall, you're golden.

If you asked flood experts about any building proximate to rivers, their answer would be the same: the river should have room to flood to a much higher level than a 100 year flood and change course. That would sterilize a huge amount of land. It would be a huge vote of non-confidence that the city is perfectly ok putting private dwellings in but not ok with a city asset.

O-tacular
Aug 24, 2015, 5:30 PM
Regardless, I think they should be careful how close they put it to the river. In the current layout they have it right next to it. Just because the land doesn't get flooded doesn't mean it couldn't get undercut or washed away. You wouldn't want it undermining the foundation.

monocle
Aug 24, 2015, 7:49 PM
Regardless, I think they should be careful how close they put it to the river. In the current layout they have it right next to it. Just because the land doesn't get flooded doesn't mean it couldn't get undercut or washed away. You wouldn't want it undermining the foundation.

That's up to the Engineers, right? If the Dutch can figure it out 300 years ago, it must be doable. I think the biggest reason to pull it back is that the riverfront is better used by the new WV. The fact that Bow (and Crow?) could be fixed is the gravy.

RyLucky
Aug 24, 2015, 7:52 PM
King spoke incorrectly when he said that, unlike the Saddledome, this location is not on a flood plain. It is. So is all of downtown and the Beltline, geologically speaking. If given enough time (probably only a few centuries or millennia) and no canalization, the Bow and Elbow could meander to any part of downtown. However, with only minimal interference, we can mitigate 99% of that risk without causing any quantifiable damage to the environment.

What I think King meant to say is that the new location is not in the high-risk red zone that the Saddledome sits right beside. It would be extremely unlikely for the West Village to flood in the coming centuries - and if the river is increasingly canalized with boulders and retaining walls, the WV will likely never flood.

That water "expert" is basically advocating that zero development be pursued in the inner city, a view that has some ethical merit but can only be considered as a part of the info the city needs to decide how to grow. The city could ban paving large surfaces or prohibit basements or the province could outlaw logging from this watershed too if we really wanted to do everything we could to prevent flood damage.

I'd like to add that I think photos of water rising in the Saddledome are part of what mobilized thousands of volunteers within hours in 2013. Is that proof enough that people like the Saddledome as it is?

craner
Aug 25, 2015, 12:09 AM
I don't see this proposal ever happening. Way too much money and way too many hurdles. More likely scenario is they build the arena only in some crap location and drop the stadium idea and maybe sell the Stamps since they are a money loser anyway.

Always a ray of sunshine ... :rolleyes:

tomthumb2
Aug 25, 2015, 9:37 PM
Always a ray of sunshine ... :rolleyes:

Not the only one who thinks that way. Check out Eric Francis comments on the Fan: http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/on-demand/

Its just reality - there are just way too many hurdles to overcome and I don't really have faith in any group of politicians getting together on the same page and figuring it out.

O-tacular
Aug 25, 2015, 10:02 PM
Not the only one who thinks that way. Check out Eric Francis comments on the Fan: http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/on-demand/

Its just reality - there are just way too many hurdles to overcome and I don't really have faith in any group of politicians getting together on the same page and figuring it out.

The onus should not be on politicians but on the Flames ownership. So far they've shown us nothing worthwhile or detailed enough to bolster support for their plans. If their whole angle for public funding is the field house then why are they asking tax payers to foot the bill for 80% of the cost? It seems to me the field house is more of a bonus than the main purpose of this project. Also their renderings were crap and made for a bad field house and a bad football stadium. It looked like a terrible compromise that would satisfy nobody.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 25, 2015, 10:07 PM
Around 50% of the cost from users/owners/Flames (which is entirely fungible and comes from the same place, ticket buyers), but yeah.

They could have came to the table with more, or less and there would have been merits to it.

CalgaryAlex
Aug 25, 2015, 10:46 PM
I also am left wondering why "efficiencies" in combining the stadium and fieldhouse still results in the city contributing the full $200 million they originally stated would be floated for a fieldhouse.

A better argument would have been: "By pooling our resources and combining the fieldhouse and stadium, the city can reduce their estimate for this capital cost to $170 million."

O-tacular
Aug 25, 2015, 10:48 PM
Around 50% of the cost from users/owners/Flames (which is entirely fungible and comes from the same place, ticket buyers), but yeah.

They could have came to the table with more, or less and there would have been merits to it.

Has it been determined yet if they would take out the loan for the ticket tax or if they expect the city to?

O-tacular
Aug 25, 2015, 10:49 PM
I also am left wondering why "efficiencies" in combining the stadium and fieldhouse still results in the city contributing the full $200 million they originally stated would be floated for a fieldhouse.

A better argument would have been: "By pooling our resources and combining the fieldhouse and stadium, the city can reduce their estimate for this capital cost to $170 million."

No kidding. There really isn't any incentive in this for the city. This is psychology 101.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 25, 2015, 10:53 PM
No, but it is pretty inconsequential in my mind. Makes no real difference in my mind if city politicians decide they want ticket holders to pay an extra $6 million a year in interest just so they can have a free conscience that they aren't supporting professional sports beyond the CRL.

It is a subsidy, but one that costs the city $0.

red_179
Aug 26, 2015, 4:17 AM
Also their renderings were crap and made for a bad field house and a bad football stadium. It looked like a terrible compromise that would satisfy nobody.

The renderings are conceptual, I wouldn't be too worried about that. It doesn't make sense for them to go all out paying for detailed architectural plans when there are so many hoops to jump through before they know if the project will even proceed.

Full Mountain
Aug 26, 2015, 9:53 PM
The renderings are conceptual, I wouldn't be too worried about that. It doesn't make sense for them to go all out paying for detailed architectural plans when there are so many hoops to jump through before they know if the project will even proceed.

How is it that they've been floating this idea for a decade and conceptual renderings is all they have?

They don't even have a plan to deal with the contamination, or for that matter what to do with the roads that run through the area.

This should be sent back to the drawing board for them to come back when they have a plan for purchasing the required land, cleaning it up, dealing with proper urban development, and private funding.

The CRL IMO will be almost entirely dedicated to resolving the issues with the area (contamination, road realignment, flood plain issues, etc.), there won't be $240M left of the arena.

Ramsayfarian
Aug 26, 2015, 10:03 PM
How is it that they've been floating this idea for a decade and conceptual renderings is all they have?



I think it is safe to say that in the past 2 weeks, more thought has been put into CalgaryNext by members here than by the owners.

O-tacular
Aug 26, 2015, 10:16 PM
I think it is safe to say that in the past 2 weeks, more thought has been put into CalgaryNext by members here than by the owners.

I think the owners put more energy into trying to bribe the PC's and Jim Prentice into funding this than they have actually designing the building itself. Plan B was what we saw last week.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 26, 2015, 10:18 PM
Well, maybe they know their place, that they aren't developers or city planners. Also, Why would a private group propose moving a road? All of a sudden people will act like they are responsible for moving a road, and why should the public move the road, even if rejigging the roads brings numerous public benefits.

I odn't know, but with the city moving up the budget process, perhaps they were in an awkward place compared to the spring when they had nearly nothing, and the fall when they will have something better for the combo-building.

When there isn't really any formal process for this privately initiated city processes it is hard to plan. Remember the people who wanted all the city land around Anderson to fund a 7,000 person concert venue and dropped a neighbourhood vision? I think they had one day in the news and then they were gone.

O-tacular
Aug 26, 2015, 10:22 PM
Well, maybe they know their place, that they aren't developers or city planners. Also, Why would a private group propose moving a road? All of a sudden people will act like they are responsible for moving a road, and why should the public move the road, even if rejigging the roads brings numerous public benefits.

I odn't know, but with the city moving up the budget process, perhaps they were in an awkward place compared to the spring when they had nearly nothing, and the fall when they will have something better for the combo-building.

When there isn't really any formal process for this privately initiated city processes it is hard to plan. Remember the people who wanted all the city land around Anderson to fund a 7,000 person concert venue and dropped a neighbourhood vision? I think they had one day in the news and then they were gone.

??? When was that? I remember the TOD vision and that's about it.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 26, 2015, 10:27 PM
??? When was that? I remember the tod vision and that's about it.

2007


'world-class' arts hall pitched for calgary; 8,000-seat venue would include hotel, office
mario toneguzzi with files from alexandra burroughs. Calgary herald 31 mar 2007

a calgary company wants to build a "world-class acoustically sophisticated 8,000-seat venue," with an adjoining upscale hotel with ballrooms, restaurants and bars, adjacent to the anderson road c-train station.

The titan project, on a total of 3.4 hectares of land, would eventually include twin office towers with a condo and retail mix.

Philip marcus, founding director and president of the titan entertainment group inc., told the herald on friday that the company is trying to secure the land through the city for the project, and is at the capital-raising stage for the proposal.

O-tacular
Aug 26, 2015, 10:59 PM
2007

Oh weird. Must have forgotten that one amid the crowd of project proposals back then. It would be fun to dig up some more of those never builts. The biggest one I'm glad never got built was that Lausanne Montreux stuccofest.

http://admin.sourcemediagroup.ca/scripts/timthumb/timthumb.php?src=/images/uploads/ccl_2006/ccl0906_i66/CCL0906-i66-CP2A.png&w=460&h=0

Fuzz
Sep 1, 2015, 6:48 PM
Interview with KK, some interesting bits
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/08/31/calgary-sports-and-entertainment-corps-president-and-ceo-ken-king-answers-a-few-questions-about-calgarynext
Basically admitting their contribution is a starting point to negotiate, even though its not. But it is. And a suburbia arena won't work, and he's got the final designs but doesn't like them, so they aren't final?

The Fisher Account
Sep 1, 2015, 7:08 PM
Ha, I sent in that final renderings question, because I'm pretty sure he's sitting on them. LOL

SHOW ME THE RENDERS!

Socguy
Sep 1, 2015, 11:08 PM
The question that the Sun failed to ask which should be answered is if KK intends for their proposed $200M contribution to be cash upfront or to be structured like the Edmonton deal where they give only $17M upfront with the rest of their contribution coming in the form of rent they will pay over their 35 years use of the facility.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/projects_redevelopment/the-agreement.aspx

O-tacular
Sep 1, 2015, 11:10 PM
Interview with KK, some interesting bits
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/08/31/calgary-sports-and-entertainment-corps-president-and-ceo-ken-king-answers-a-few-questions-about-calgarynext
Basically admitting their contribution is a starting point to negotiate, even though its not. But it is. And a suburbia arena won't work, and he's got the final designs but doesn't like them, so they aren't final?

About the only answers he gave that I liked were that the parking would be 'enough. Not too much but enough.' And also that a suburban location would create more problems than they have now.

CorporateWhore
Sep 1, 2015, 11:18 PM
Considering the utter turd the Flames released in terms of the third jersey, I really Ken King is not the one one in charge of approving the design of the stadium.

O-tacular
Sep 1, 2015, 11:23 PM
Considering the utter turd the Flames released in terms of the third jersey, I really Ken King is not the one one in charge of approving the design of the stadium.

Not a fan of the cursive lasso font? :haha:

The Chemist
Sep 1, 2015, 11:24 PM
Considering the utter turd the Flames released in terms of the third jersey, I really Ken King is not the one one in charge of approving the design of the stadium.

I've never understood the hate for the current third jersey (or the old black one, for that matter). I actually quite like it.

CorporateWhore
Sep 2, 2015, 12:11 AM
I've never understood the hate for the current third jersey (or the old black one, for that matter). I actually quite like it.

It looks like hokey-pokey version of a generic hockey jersey that you find in the Walmart discount bin. Their big idea was to spell out Calgary in a terrible font and then awkwardly stuff the C in there just in case we're not sure who it is. It stinks of a client with bad taste getting in the way.

Here's a pro tip for you Ken: Leave the effin logo alone. It's one of the best in the league already. The heavy lifting is done for you. Do what you must around it, but leave the logo alone!

Not sure why the Flames are always trying to force the western thing onto the team these days, but if they're going to do it, they need to make sure it's at least done well.

The old Calgary Cowboys logo was at least charming and well designed.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6224/6220770554_9e97a50cf6.jpg

O-tacular
Sep 2, 2015, 1:02 AM
I'm just thankful the arena rendering didn't have any Stampitecture brick or anything old timey looking. At least it shows a modern direction. That's about all I can say though as the rest is so vague and wishy washy that it can't even be critiqued.

Ramsayfarian
Sep 2, 2015, 2:14 AM
I'm just thankful the arena rendering didn't have any Stampitecture brick or anything old timey looking. At least it shows a modern direction. That's about all I can say though as the rest is so vague and wishy washy that it can't even be critiqued.

The lack of Stampitecture is probably what King doesn't like about the rendering.

Blue_Cypress
Sep 2, 2015, 3:16 AM
I think it is safe to say that in the past 2 weeks, more thought has been put into CalgaryNext by members here than by the owners.

Absolutely. But how is that a shock? We have them beat both in sheer numbers and in relevant experience. This forum receives contributions and scrutiny from alderpersons, government officials and pencil pushers, construction leaders, developers, REIT's... You name it. You want to fine-tune a design? throw it to these wolves, and watch the fireworks.

O-tacular
Sep 2, 2015, 3:39 AM
The lack of Stampitecture is probably what King doesn't like about the rendering.
:haha::haha::haha:

Socguy
Sep 2, 2015, 12:22 PM
Metro is running an article about the implications of CalgaryNEXT on the cities plan for the West Village:

http://www.metronews.ca/views/calgary/your-ride/2015/08/31/calgary-arena-could-wreck-west-villages-walkability.html

Innersoul1
Sep 2, 2015, 4:44 PM
I've never understood the hate for the current third jersey (or the old black one, for that matter). I actually quite like it.

It's cheap looking, like a replica from Walmart. I think a third jersey really gives a team the opportunity to show something really cool and different. It gives a little bit of flare. Overall the Flames' third jersey is a big swing and a miss.

Calgarian
Sep 2, 2015, 5:21 PM
It's cheap looking, like a replica from Walmart. I think a third jersey really gives a team the opportunity to show something really cool and different. It gives a little bit of flare. Overall the Flames' third jersey is a big swing and a miss.

Especially after the retro jersey was the 3rd Jersey.

craner
Sep 2, 2015, 6:36 PM
The old Calgary Cowboys logo was at least charming and well designed.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6224/6220770554_9e97a50cf6.jpg
Getting off topic here but seeing that Calgary Cowboys jersey brought back some good memories for me.
I think the Flames should go with this (white version though) as their 3rd jersey as a tip of the hat (sorry for the pun) to the old WHA Cowboys.
I am in the camp that hates the current 3rd jersey - generic Wall-Mart discount shirt is an apt description IMO.

O-tacular
Sep 2, 2015, 6:38 PM
It looks like hokey-pokey version of a generic hockey jersey that you find in the Walmart discount bin. Their big idea was to spell out Calgary in a terrible font and then awkwardly stuff the C in there just in case we're not sure who it is. It stinks of a client with bad taste getting in the way.

Here's a pro tip for you Ken: Leave the effin logo alone. It's one of the best in the league already. The heavy lifting is done for you. Do what you must around it, but leave the logo alone!

Not sure why the Flames are always trying to force the western thing onto the team these days, but if they're going to do it, they need to make sure it's at least done well.

The old Calgary Cowboys logo was at least charming and well designed.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6224/6220770554_9e97a50cf6.jpg

All I see with that logo is a dick, kind of like the Arby's hat logo. That type of cowboy hat just looks phallic.

craner
Sep 2, 2015, 6:49 PM
Metro is running an article about the implications of CalgaryNEXT on the cities plan for the West Village:

http://www.metronews.ca/views/calgary/your-ride/2015/08/31/calgary-arena-could-wreck-west-villages-walkability.html

Now to get back on topic:

This article brings up issues with NEXT that have been discussed on this forum over the last two weeks.

The article mentions concerns about overloading Bow Trail & LRT on game nights but I don't feel this is really an issue. We already go through this with the Saddledome at Stampede Park and everyone survives. If anything the West LRT is less crowded than the South line and Bow Trail is better suited to handle high traffic than MacLeod Trail so it should be an improvement.

At the end of the day I hope the NEXT that was presented two werks ago is nothing more than a concept that can be evolved into something that will work with the overall plans for the West Village. I thought nick.flood & RyLucky had the best idea in moving the complex as far south as possible to open up the riverfront & allow connectivity through WV to and from downtown. It also puts the complex closer to the LRT station.

CRL would definitely be needed to pay for all the infrastructure improvements though.

suburbia
Sep 2, 2015, 7:00 PM
Now to get back on topic:

This article brings up issues with NEXT that have been discussed on this forum over the last two weeks.

The article mentions concerns about overloading Bow Trail & LRT on game nights but I don't feel this is really an issue. We already go through this with the Saddledome at Stampede Park and everyone survives. If anything the West LRT is less crowded than the South line and Bow Trail is better suited to handle high traffic than MacLeod Trail so it should be an improvement.

At the end of the day I hope the NEXT that was presented two werks ago is nothing more than a concept that can be evolved into something that will work with the overall plans for the West Village. I thought nick.flood & RyLucky had the best idea in moving the complex as far south as possible to open up the riverfront & allow connectivity through WV to and from downtown. It also puts the complex closer to the LRT station.

CRL would definitely be needed to pay for all the infrastructure improvements though.

PanAm Games tickets included use of public transit. Perhaps doing the same with Flames and Stampeders tickets would encourage more transit. Wrapping that negotiation in with all of current negotiations King will be doing with the City makes sense. A good thing to do no matter how you cut it (IE should be done for games at the Saddledome and McMohan also).

Bigtime
Sep 2, 2015, 8:04 PM
How to Sell a Stadium in Six Easy Steps: Calgary Gets the High-Pressure Pitch

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-to-sell-a-stadium-in-six-easy-steps-calgary-gets-the-high-pressure-pitch/

dazzlingdave88
Sep 2, 2015, 8:21 PM
PanAm Games tickets included use of public transit. Perhaps doing the same with Flames and Stampeders tickets would encourage more transit. Wrapping that negotiation in with all of current negotiations King will be doing with the City makes sense. A good thing to do no matter how you cut it (IE should be done for games at the Saddledome and McMohan also).

Edmonton allows game tickets for sporting events (not sure about concerts) to count as proof of payment on the LRT.

O-tacular
Sep 2, 2015, 10:17 PM
How to Sell a Stadium in Six Easy Steps: Calgary Gets the High-Pressure Pitch

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-to-sell-a-stadium-in-six-easy-steps-calgary-gets-the-high-pressure-pitch/

It should be an interesting next year. We'll see if things devolve into an Edmonton scale circus and if KK ends up playing the 'we'll move the team' card.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 2, 2015, 10:22 PM
Is it a card? It will eventually become impossible to maintain the Saddledome. Granted, it may be 15 years from now, or 25 years but that eventually the team will move without something new or a big investment in the current one.

O-tacular
Sep 2, 2015, 10:45 PM
I think what gets me the most about this whole thing is the fieldhouse. It's hilarious how they found that one item on the city's wish list and used it to justify us paying four times the price (not counting any infrastructure expenses such as re-aligning Bow, upgrading the Crowchild flyover, decontaminating the site etc...etc...) for what will amount to a part time amenity for the public.

I'm sorry but you can't spin it as the pivotal component of the whole project, though maybe for the hand out they want it is. It's a trojan horse. The main beneficiaries will be the teams and the ownership.

I'm a huge Flames fan and love seeing them play at the Dome. My biggest gripe is the bathrooms. But that doesn't justify this payment scheme where the main users and people who will benefit the most from this facility only pay for 20% of it. I don't care how else you obfuscate it, in the end they will only be paying $200 million.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 2, 2015, 10:56 PM
Ten games a year is a lot? Practicing during the day during the least in demand hours? Has the Flames practicing at Centennial had a big impact on public use?

If the field house is built anywhere else not as part of this bet on the Stampeders being big users even if they stay in the current stadium for games.

This project isn't perfect and involves a big public investment, but I really doubt there would be problems on use allocation.

And it is 2.5 times the price, without cleanup or other public associated investments as far as we know. If you count the ticket tax (which K.K. seems to already be using a different term for) as public, you should count the Flames amount as public too, since that is where the money comes from in the end.

Ramsayfarian
Sep 2, 2015, 11:16 PM
Absolutely. But how is that a shock? We have them beat both in sheer numbers and in relevant experience. This forum receives contributions and scrutiny from alderpersons, government officials and pencil pushers, construction leaders, developers, REIT's... You name it. You want to fine-tune a design? throw it to these wolves, and watch the fireworks.

Never said I was shocked. If anything I was just stating the obvious and if I was a Flames fan, I'd be a tad insulted at how little effort The Flames have put into this.

O-tacular
Sep 2, 2015, 11:19 PM
Ten games a year is a lot? Practicing during the day during the least in demand hours? Has the Flames practicing at Centennial had a big impact on public use?

If the field house is built anywhere else not as part of this bet on the Stampeders being big users even if they stay in the current stadium for games.

This project isn't perfect and involves a big public investment, but I really doubt there would be problems on use allocation.

And it is 2.5 times the price, without cleanup or other public associated investments as far as we know. If you count the ticket tax (which K.K. seems to already be using a different term for) as public, you should count the Flames amount as public too, since that is where the money comes from in the end.

Would the Roughnecks use it too? Or would they be using the arena side?

Ramsayfarian
Sep 2, 2015, 11:30 PM
How to Sell a Stadium in Six Easy Steps: Calgary Gets the High-Pressure Pitch

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-to-sell-a-stadium-in-six-easy-steps-calgary-gets-the-high-pressure-pitch/

Grantland? Wow, I'm impressed. We hit the bigtime Bigtime.