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

McMurph
Jan 15, 2016, 12:00 AM
It would be great to see polling numbers for the public's support of CalgaryNEXT pre and post-Bettman visit, because I have a suspicion that he did a lot more harm than good on his visit.

I completely agree. Bettman and King are looking completely out of touch. I particularly like the veiled threats and implication that the arena is a crucial catalyst for urban renewal. Oh, if only we could get the NHL all-star game we could be a world class city just like Columbus.

If the Flames want this thing built they should go away for a while and come back with a serious and well thought out proposal. Between now and then I wish they would all just shut up. My respect for the organization and the owner's group has been plummeting since their clownish announcement last year.

Fuzz
Jan 15, 2016, 12:09 AM
It would be great to see polling numbers for the public's support of CalgaryNEXT pre and post-Bettman visit, because I have a suspicion that he did a lot more harm than good on his visit.
Scroll down to Jan 12:
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/more/poll-results
31% for, 69% against

A previous poll here:
http://globalnews.ca/news/2180203/new-poll-finds-calgarians-are-torn-on-calgarynext-plan-for-multi-sport-complex/

Though different method and breakdown. The most recent poll on CTV indicates there isn't a lot of support.

Ramsayfarian
Jan 15, 2016, 12:56 AM
The Wallstreet Journal had an interesting article about Cincinnati getting double teamed by the NFL and MLB. Sounds

I think Brendan Dassey negotiated the deal for the county:
"On top of paying for the stadium, Hamilton County granted the Bengals generous lease terms. It agreed to pick up nearly all operating and capital improvement costs—and to foot the bill for high-tech bells and whistles that have yet to be invented, like a "holographic replay machine.""


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852

sim
Jan 15, 2016, 1:53 AM
Most of what cities provide does not meet financial economic sense. Take Transit as an example. Hand over the reigns of Calgary Transit to Westjet and they will make it profitable. But most transit supporters will be horrified at he results. Bus schedules cut 75% and only operating on the busiest of routes. Feeder service to c-train cut unless each bus is 80% full, but a massive expansion of park and ride and LRT.

can you give me three examples where the city utilizes greater than $50 million capital and has an investor grade return on capital (eg the financial business case makes sense)?

The city needs to put together their own analysis based on their own business case formula. Then the city needs to tell Calgary Sports and Entertainment a yes or no answer. Either way the city council will get a lot of negative feedback. It just a matter of deciding the faction that will be dissapointed the most.

Though it should be said: our governments spend lots of money on things with no discernible returns. In fact, if they had discernible returns, there would be no reason to use public money!

It's doubtful that any private would be able to profitably (in terms of pure money) operate a public transit system, really at any scale in most of North America, given its unfair competition; but yeah, if so, then at a very reduced level of service. That being said, transit is profitable. It has an immense amount of positive externalities. The returns are very much discernible if you look at it from a broader perspective. So there is a very good reason to use public money in this case. I found that point to be a little strange.

This is in contrast to a sports stadium. What positive externalities can be expect there? More people patronizing bars and pubs and supporting the local economy? This is often touted as one of them; I find the claim tenuous at best - the studies seem to support that. Civic pride? Perhaps. Begs the question, is that actually a positive in that form? Might be more important to build a City that people can be intrinsically proud of, not because it has a good sports team, or at least one that has a good stadium.

CalgaryAlex
Jan 15, 2016, 4:37 PM
Any public money needs to go towards a public benefit. The City's contribution of $200 million towards the football stadium in exhange for a field house is a , which is a resonable request for public funds from the Flames. But above that, they need to provide more of a benefit. It will take a lot of free skating nights to pay the area back.

I also don't understand how if the Flames and city combine forces to create a fieldhouse/stadium complex, why aren't there some savings for the city? They estimated a $200 million cost to build a fieldhouse on their own. The Flames "help" by joining in and creating a dual-purpose facility. The Flames mention "efficiencies" in working together, but the costs for the city remain the same? I don't understand that logic.


I completely agree. Bettman and King are looking completely out of touch. I particularly like the veiled threats and implication that the arena is a crucial catalyst for urban renewal. Oh, if only we could get the NHL all-star game we could be a world class city just like Columbus.

If the Flames want this thing built they should go away for a while and come back with a serious and well thought out proposal. Between now and then I wish they would all just shut up. My respect for the organization and the owner's group has been plummeting since their clownish announcement last year.

The Flames could have given this over to the d.talks people to create a competition like they did last year for "lost spaces". That would have been an open, and exciting competition which would have been a great conversation starter for the city as a whole. They wouldn't have to go with any of the submissions, but would have gotten thousands of great ideas out of it.

Seriously, they could have given applicants of such a competition a total of 30 minutes to create a potential design, and they would have gotten better results back than the garbage they presented last year. Jesus, I mean Ken King could have slammed down a ham sandwich on a conference room table and it would have generated more positive reactions than CalgaryNEXT.

MalcolmTucker
Jan 15, 2016, 6:40 PM
I also don't understand how if the Flames and city combine forces to create a fieldhouse/stadium complex, why aren't there some savings for the city? They estimated a $200 million cost to build a fieldhouse on their own. The Flames "help" by joining in and creating a dual-purpose facility. The Flames mention "efficiencies" in working together, but the costs for the city remain the same? I don't understand that logic.


Speculating: The efficiency only really comes from the extra costs of the field house being 30k spectators instead of 5-10k being absorbed through shared facilities. Building a smaller capacity field house there could be real savings the shared facilities, though probably not as much.

suburbia
Jan 15, 2016, 6:52 PM
This reminded me of Bettman coming to Nenshi for a hand-out. Watch through the whole thing, and enjoy the hand gestures from the brown guy.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2453750/store-clerk-scolds-armed-thief-convinces-him-to-put-gun-away-during-robbery/

craner
Jan 15, 2016, 8:13 PM
Ha - and the cop looks like Chris Jones. :haha:

suburbia
Jan 16, 2016, 10:13 PM
Nenshi is a god among mayors. So clear and articulate, and I loved how he called Bettman by his full name.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/calgarynext-mayor-nenshi-holds-the-line-on-arena-project/article28230993/

Calgary could well go ahead with this project, he says, and could even start getting their money out of it by the end of the planned tax breaks.

“But of course at that time,” he says, “Gary Bettman Junior will say, ‘This rink is 30 years old – you’ll have to build a new one.’”

artvandelay
Jan 17, 2016, 9:23 PM
I'm really not sure why Nenshi is getting so much adulation for making that unprofessional statement earlier this week. If he wants to decline a meeting, that's fine and completely understandable, but making a media spectacle about it was childish and unnecessary.

kora
Jan 25, 2016, 4:37 PM
Subsidising NFL teams: Sacking the taxpayer
The Economist
Jan 16th 2016

"29 out of 31 NFL stadiums have received public subsidies to help cover construction and renovation costs since 1995. NFL teams argue that this is justified because their presence drives consumer spending, but the academic literature says otherwise: economists argue that in the absence of sports teams, consumers would simply spend their money on other forms of entertainment. Any public subsidies for football stadiums are effectively transfers of wealth from taxpayers to NFL owners and athletes. Professional football teams don’t need the help: according to Forbes, a magazine, the average NFL team makes $76m a year in profit, with a very healthy 22% operating margin."

suburbia
Jan 25, 2016, 8:06 PM
I'm really not sure why Nenshi is getting so much adulation for making that unprofessional statement earlier this week. If he wants to decline a meeting, that's fine and completely understandable, but making a media spectacle about it was childish and unnecessary.

I think people in the media are asking him these questions as there is a thirst for fairness in the public discourse about this potentially massive subsidy.

The Urbanist
Jan 25, 2016, 8:10 PM
I completely agree. Bettman and King are looking completely out of touch. I particularly like the veiled threats and implication that the arena is a crucial catalyst for urban renewal. Oh, if only we could get the NHL all-star game we could be a world class city just like Columbus.

If the Flames want this thing built they should go away for a while and come back with a serious and well thought out proposal. Between now and then I wish they would all just shut up. My respect for the organization and the owner's group has been plummeting since their clownish announcement last year.

I can't agree with you more. Their proposal was lazy and poorly executed IMO. Nenshi won't fold to these guys, so I don't see anything like this happening for quite sometime.

The Fisher Account
Jan 26, 2016, 3:24 PM
I'm really not sure why Nenshi is getting so much adulation for making that unprofessional statement earlier this week. If he wants to decline a meeting, that's fine and completely understandable, but making a media spectacle about it was childish and unnecessary.

It's almost as if he's a politician and this is a calculated gamble at one of the premier election issues he'll be congratulated for or racked over the coals over

artvandelay
Jan 26, 2016, 4:39 PM
It's almost as if he's a politician and this is a calculated gamble at one of the premier election issues he'll be congratulated for or racked over the coals over

Perhaps true, but is that an excuse for his immature communication through the media?

There's nothing wrong with opposing the project and there's nothing wrong with declining a meeting with Bettman if he truly was busy. I decline meetings all the time and do so politely without any need for dramatics. There is absolutely no reason for our mayor to be making childish, unprofessional public statements in the media. It reflects poorly on him and it reflects poorly on the city.

The Fisher Account
Jan 26, 2016, 4:43 PM
Perhaps true, but is that an excuse for his immature communication through the media?

There's nothing wrong with opposing the project and there's nothing wrong with declining a meeting with Bettman if he truly was busy. I decline meetings all the time and do so politely without any need for dramatics. There is absolutely no reason for our mayor to be making childish, unprofessional public statements in the media. It reflects poorly on him and it reflects poorly on the city.

On the contrary, his video was relayed around North America as a shining example of a municipality FINALLY standing up to a Big 4 sports organization.

Say what you want about Nenshi, but his 'childish unprofessional-ism' earned him a metric shit-ton of good press

ByeByeBaby
Jan 26, 2016, 5:35 PM
Perhaps true, but is that an excuse for his immature communication through the media?

There's nothing wrong with opposing the project and there's nothing wrong with declining a meeting with Bettman if he truly was busy. I decline meetings all the time and do so politely without any need for dramatics. There is absolutely no reason for our mayor to be making childish, unprofessional public statements in the media. It reflects poorly on him and it reflects poorly on the city.

Nenshi did exactly what you say: decline the meeting privately, and with no dramatics.

Bettman then came here and held a press conference making threats, then gave exclusive interviews to the media; you seem to think that's above reproach. Nenshi is asked for comment in response during a break in a public meeting - this to you is a "childish, unprofessional public statement". Are you suggesting that our mayor not talk to the media when asked direct questions? I like having elected officials give their opinions on current events relevant to their offices when asked questions by the media.

MasterG
Jan 26, 2016, 5:41 PM
I can't agree with you more. Their proposal was lazy and poorly executed IMO. Nenshi won't fold to these guys, so I don't see anything like this happening for quite sometime.

This exactly. If you are going to ask for such a large sum of money, there was no part of their proposal that stood up to further scrutiny. The numbers proposed seemed on a paper-napkin and hardly rigorously calculated, as numerous discussions have already pointed out.

But even the site designs themselves are lacking and out of touch with the site. The best advantages were ignored wasting as a prime riverfront redevelopment opportunity, one of the last available in inner Calgary. Hell, a few members on SSP posted within hours of the announcement that showed more thought of how the site could work than what was presented.

I don't see any administration of the City passing this the way it is. Substantial redesign - both in funding scheme, scope and design is inevitable.

O-tacular
Jan 27, 2016, 5:06 AM
On the contrary, his video was relayed around North America as a shining example of a municipality FINALLY standing up to a Big 4 sports organization.

Say what you want about Nenshi, but his 'childish unprofessional-ism' earned him a metric shit-ton of good press

On that topic I found this:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2016/01/13/10413/calgary-mayor-on-bettmans-attempted-flames-arena-shakedown-thats-not-how-we-operate-here/

And this:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/calgary-mayor-should-be-applauded-for-staring-down-gary-bettman/

Electrical Storm
Jan 27, 2016, 4:09 PM
Ken King was at UofC's downtown campus this morning for 'Haskayne Hour' (https://haskayne.ucalgary.ca/research/haskayne-hour).

Overall, the focus wasn't on Calgary Next, but rather on the value of professional sports on city building. Pretty interesting stuff.

polishavenger
Jan 27, 2016, 5:14 PM
Ken King was at UofC's downtown campus this morning for 'Haskayne Hour' (https://haskayne.ucalgary.ca/research/haskayne-hour).

Overall, the focus wasn't on Calgary Next, but rather on the value of professional sports on city building. Pretty interesting stuff.

It was a valueless fluff piece of a presentation. They seemed to have overlooked the fact that the city already has professional sports teams, so no need to sell the social benefits of them unless its a veiled threat to leave. How is building Calgary Next going to add more social benefits above and beyond the existing teams and existing facilities wasnt even mentioned.

Also no discussion about why a professional team even bothers to look at new facilities, because ultimately it comes down to added money to the owners, and they like to ignore that motivation because then people ask the question, "if you benefit, why don't you pay for it".

Which leads to the glaring omission of any discussion at all of how to finance the development. Not a peep about the fact that the ownership group could pay for this out of pocket and barely notice a dip in their net worth. The UofC prof did mention briefly a few times that the preponderance of studies show no economic benefit to new stadium projects, but didnt spend much time elaborating on that.

Innersoul1
Feb 3, 2016, 6:10 PM
I was intrigued watching all of the shots of the Bridgestone Arena during the All-Star game. It's a pretty sharp looking rink. It's also right next to the Music City Center, which is a stunning convention space http://www.nashvillemusiccitycenter.com/

Would there be any merit to having a combined arena and convention space. I get that the field house benefits the Stamps/Flames organization. Just throwing stuff out there.

ByeByeBaby
Feb 3, 2016, 6:25 PM
New poll out in the most recent issue of Metro:
Slim majority pan CalgaryNext (http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2016/02/02/poll-slim-majority-pan-calgarynext.html)

The headline is a little misleading; while just over half didn't support the project, the funding model - which is intrinsic to the proposal - was substantially more unpopular; 7% strongly approve, 20% somewhat approve, 24% somewhat disapprove and 40% strongly disapprove.

Socguy
Feb 3, 2016, 8:45 PM
It's already been discussed how 'back of the napkin' this proposal was. This is probably by design. Ken King is no dummy. He's playing the long game where he throws out the gold plated version, gets everyones' dander up but lays the groundwork where whatever comes next seems reasonable by comparison.

CalgaryAlex
Feb 3, 2016, 9:04 PM
It's already been discussed how 'back of the napkin' this proposal was. This is probably by design. Ken King is no dummy. He's playing the long game where he throws out the gold plated version, gets everyones' dander up but lays the groundwork where whatever comes next seems reasonable by comparison.

Your post may be a bit facetious, but I beg to differ with the bolded line above. Only a complete idiot would willingly stand next to a screen smiling while presenting an embarrassment like CalgaryNEXT to the public.

McMurph
Feb 4, 2016, 12:02 AM
Your post may be a bit facetious, but I beg to differ with the bolded line above. Only a complete idiot would willingly stand next to a screen smiling while presenting an embarrassment like CalgaryNEXT to the public.

Don't forget his classy use of the term "money shot" during the presentation.

CalgaryAlex
Feb 4, 2016, 3:57 PM
Don't forget his classy use of the term "money shot" during the presentation.

All he needs is a porno stache and a camcorder and he'd be the perfect smut merchant!

Riise
Feb 4, 2016, 4:38 PM
Would there be any merit to having a combined arena and convention space. I get that the field house benefits the Stamps/Flames organization. Just throwing stuff out there.

Any benefit would have to outweigh the design-challenge presented by having numerous superblocks.

MichaelS
Feb 4, 2016, 7:43 PM
Any benefit would have to outweigh the design-challenge presented by having numerous superblocks.

And would have to outweigh the current benefit of having the Saddledome next to the BMO centre now (I know Suburbia, the BMO centre isn't a fully proper convention centre, but it still counts IMO).

Socguy
Feb 4, 2016, 10:01 PM
Your post may be a bit facetious, but I beg to differ with the bolded line above. Only a complete idiot would willingly stand next to a screen smiling while presenting an embarrassment like CalgaryNEXT to the public.

I take your point. I just have a hard time squaring the idea that the Flames had this much time to work on something and this was what we got.

CalgaryAlex
Feb 4, 2016, 10:05 PM
I take your point. I just have a hard time squaring the idea that the Flames had this much time to work on something and this was what we got.

I am flabbergasted, myself!!

tomthumb2
Feb 4, 2016, 10:44 PM
I am flabbergasted, myself!!

Especially when you see what Ottawa just showed! (in like a tenth of the time it took the Flames)

fusili
Feb 4, 2016, 11:01 PM
New poll out in the most recent issue of Metro:
Slim majority pan CalgaryNext (http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2016/02/02/poll-slim-majority-pan-calgarynext.html)

The headline is a little misleading; while just over half didn't support the project, the funding model - which is intrinsic to the proposal - was substantially more unpopular; 7% strongly approve, 20% somewhat approve, 24% somewhat disapprove and 40% strongly disapprove.

When you have 64% disapprove and only 27% approve, it isn't a slim majority, it is a trouncing. Not only that, but 40% strongly disapprove.

If this is to be evaluated as a PR battle between Nenshi and Bettman (I don't think it should be, there are a lot more players in this than just those two, but anyways), then Nenshi is clearly winning. 64% to 27%.

O-tacular
Feb 4, 2016, 11:41 PM
I don't see anything happening on the arena front for a long time. The city isn't giving in to this BS and the ownership group is simply going to have to accept that and build it themselves (which they likely won't do until every other option has been exhausted).

sammyd
Feb 5, 2016, 12:27 AM
Don't forget his classy use of the term "money shot" during the presentation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_shot

tomthumb2
Feb 5, 2016, 1:30 AM
I don't see anything happening on the arena front for a long time. The city isn't giving in to this BS and the ownership group is simply going to have to accept that and build it themselves (which they likely won't do until every other option has been exhausted).

Bang on O. This is a dead issue. At least for a while.

Ramsayfarian
Feb 5, 2016, 1:36 AM
I am flabbergasted, myself!!

As a Calgarian I was highly insulted by how little effort they put into it. It was like the Flames felt like they could spoon feed us this steaming pile and we'd eat it up and ask for more.

bt04ku
Feb 5, 2016, 3:50 AM
The Ottawa guys are basically in the same position as the Flames at this point, and they at least dressed theirs up.

http://i.cbc.ca/1.3426197.1454179390!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/arenas-in-lebreton-bids.jpg

Sure it's not particularly coherent, very noisy, but it's the kind of thing that is supposed to distract the populace while you try to get public money. Sure it looks like it was whipped up in an hour, but that is basically what the Flames gave us, but without any snap. Not even a crackle. Just no pop.

http://static.theglobeandmail.ca/88e/news/national/article28230992.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/macgregor15nw1.JPG

I mean they've been delaying this thing for ages, and this is the best they could do to try and win the hearts and minds of Calgarians? Come up with something amazing that after seeing we just can't do without, but you can't do without public help and will otherwise come up with something boring (something like what you came up with) so that we'd rather fork over our money for all the bells and whistles of an iconic building, fiscal sense be damned. If we're going to go after a white elephant, at least give us a reason to chase it.

Say what you want about the Cowboy Hat arena, but it at least had some form of heart and effort put into it.

geotag277
Feb 5, 2016, 5:20 AM
It's a negotiation guys. What would be the purpose of spending a ton of money up front for a first draft proposal that would have near zero chance of getting approved anyway?

The Flames put forward a straw man for the next arena as a starting point for talks and negotiations with the city. I don't think they really expected majority approval at this early stage.

Now there is at least a proposal out there that can be debated, and people like Nenshi and others can address the lack of value and how the public funds fall short.

It's going to be a very long process, and there is little sense in front loading it with unrealistic fireworks.

H.E.Pennypacker
Feb 5, 2016, 2:51 PM
It's a negotiation guys. What would be the purpose of spending a ton of money up front for a first draft proposal that would have near zero chance of getting approved anyway?

The Flames put forward a straw man for the next arena as a starting point for talks and negotiations with the city. I don't think they really expected majority approval at this early stage.

Now there is at least a proposal out there that can be debated, and people like Nenshi and others can address the lack of value and how the public funds fall short.

It's going to be a very long process, and there is little sense in front loading it with unrealistic fireworks.

I agree with this. I think KK and company just throw shitty proposal (in terms of detail and planning) to the wall just to see if they could get a public reaction to stick. Hoping that citizens would love the idea and start putting pressure on the City to get the project going.

Fortunately for us, nobody really bought it and wants to put their tax dollars on the line for these guys and there is minimal pressure on the City to action on this. The result is that this will be a long process before anything to built. But at least it gets the conversation started.

Riise
Feb 5, 2016, 3:29 PM
Now there is at least a proposal out there that can be debated.

Proposals aren't like publicity, bad proposals are bad and won't get you the same results as good proposals. The debate taking place is not one that CSEC would like to have as they are taking a beating.

speedog
Feb 5, 2016, 4:29 PM
I agree that it wasn't the greatest of proposals but the underlying fact that there's that creosote sitting there that will have to be addressed at some point and that no mention of those costs were brought forward probably irked a number of people. Plop a slightly better proposal over on railtown and I'd bet CSEC would've got quite a bit different reaction.

The unfortunate thing in all of this is that I suspect those west lands will remain the barren waste they currently are for quite a while yet as the responsibility and cost of cleaning everything up is something no one wants to come forward and solely bear.

Electrical Storm
Feb 5, 2016, 5:09 PM
It was a valueless fluff piece of a presentation. They seemed to have overlooked the fact that the city already has professional sports teams, so no need to sell the social benefits of them unless its a veiled threat to leave. How is building Calgary Next going to add more social benefits above and beyond the existing teams and existing facilities wasnt even mentioned.

It was interesting, but nothing revolutionary IMO. A fluff piece? Sure.

...Which leads to the glaring omission of any discussion at all of how to finance the development. Not a peep about the fact that the ownership group could pay for this out of pocket and barely notice a dip in their net worth. The UofC prof did mention briefly a few times that the preponderance of studies show no economic benefit to new stadium projects, but didnt spend much time elaborating on that.

It was also clear that the topic of the discussion wasn't on CalgaryNext per se, but rather on the value of sport in city building. I do agree with your points above...

bt04ku
Feb 5, 2016, 9:47 PM
The Flames put forward a straw man for the next arena as a starting point for talks and negotiations with the city. I don't think they really expected majority approval at this early stage.

Now there is at least a proposal out there that can be debated, and people like Nenshi and others can address the lack of value and how the public funds fall short.

I think they expected a lot more support than they received, and things have only gotten worse since with the economy getting worse and Bettman doing nothing constructive.

The whole proposal was one step forward and two steps back IMO. It's a battle of hearts and minds and whether it's politicians or the populace, they're losing the fight for both. Not a great start.

Socguy
Feb 6, 2016, 5:41 PM
Calgarians are too smart for Ken King.

When you show up with a proposal so lopsided in your favor that it's laughable, then have the most hated Commissioner in sports come to town to drop with veiled threats that are laughable, you're not winning the day.

Tell you what KK, take the $200 million you so 'generously' threw in and spend half of it renovating the 'dome and the other half renovating McMahon. Negotiate with the Stampede board for more if you feel like it. For that amount, you'll get a facility that's almost as good as a 'modern arena' what ever that is.

GoflamesGo
Feb 7, 2016, 2:04 AM
Calgarians are too smart for Ken King.

When you show up with a proposal so lopsided in your favor that it's laughable, then have the most hated Commissioner in sports come to town to drop with veiled threats that are laughable, you're not winning the day.

Tell you what KK, take the $200 million you so 'generously' threw in and spend half of it renovating the 'dome and the other half renovating McMahon. Negotiate with the Stampede board for more if you feel like it. For that amount, you'll get a facility that's almost as good as a 'modern arena' what ever that is.

Not so sure that's exactly right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MSG just spend around $1B "modernizing" their arena?

VIce
Feb 7, 2016, 4:58 AM
Not so sure that's exactly right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MSG just spend around $1B "modernizing" their arena?

I believe you're correct. Although the renovation seemed to be very thorough, and I'm sure there's some extra costs simply associated with renovating a building in Manhattan (and on top of Penn Station).

red_179
Feb 7, 2016, 4:42 PM
I don't really get the opposition to using public funds to replace McMahon (Saddledome aside). Every single CFL stadium has been built with public funds and pretty much the entire league has built a new one or done significant renovations to the existing facility. Our proposal would have the advantage of the city having the multi-purpose use of a field house, an advantage that is not present in most of the other CFL stadiums. The CFL is not a league of millionaires, like the NHL, the average salary is $80,000. The field house is a facility that our city needs badly, by its own admission. I have no issue with funds going to replacing McMahon in the manner proposed.

suburbia
Feb 7, 2016, 5:14 PM
I don't really get the opposition to using public funds to replace McMahon (Saddledome aside). Every single CFL stadium has been built with public funds and pretty much the entire league has built a new one or done significant renovations to the existing facility. <> The CFL is not a league of millionaires

Wow - what uneducated commentary. The ownership of the Stampeders and Flames are worth well over $5B (that is just what is publicly known - doesn't include the real estate portfolios & other offshore), and have pulled massive profits out resulting from the entertainment business enabled by sweet lease arena deals. Be clear, they make more from the events and concerts at the saddledome than the sports, leveraging the sports related lease. Since acquiring the Flames, between appreciation, positive cash flow and Flames lease enabled high margin events, they have pulled out over $1.2B on the investment of $16m. The proposed facility will allow them to multiply by two the events profits, which are already more than what the flames made in a successful last season. ANY funds in support of such facilities virtually directly gets deposited into their pockets.

red_179
Feb 7, 2016, 5:52 PM
Wow - what uneducated commentary. The ownership of the Stampeders and Flames are worth well over $5B (that is just what is publicly known - doesn't include the real estate portfolios & other offshore), and have pulled massive profits out resulting from the entertainment business enabled by sweet lease arena deals. Be clear, they make more from the events and concerts at the saddledome than the sports, leveraging the sports related lease. Since acquiring the Flames, between appreciation, positive cash flow and Flames lease enabled high margin events, they have pulled out over $1.2B on the investment of $16m. The proposed facility will allow them to multiply by two the events profits, which are already more than what the flames made in a successful last season. ANY funds in support of such facilities virtually directly gets deposited into their pockets.

I am not talking about the arena, only the field house aspect of it. Yes the Flames owners have money, but they didn't make it through the CFL and the CFL is not a league of massive profits like the NHL. No CFL team is profitable enough to pay for its own building, there is a need for public funds to build a new stadium.

McMurph
Feb 7, 2016, 6:20 PM
I am not talking about the arena, only the field house aspect of it. Yes the Flames owners have money, but they didn't make it through the CFL and the CFL is not a league of massive profits like the NHL. No CFL team is profitable enough to pay for its own building, there is a need for public funds to build a new stadium.

While that might be true, the Stampeders are part of the CSEC portfolio. The owners didn't buy it and don't operate it as a public service, it's part of their grand plan for their sports and entertainment megalopoly. The stadium part of Calgary Next is much more about their business than it is about our field house. Sure, the city has identified a field house as a core need, but investing in it should be done on the city's terms, not CSEC's.

Just because other cities have done something doesn't mean Calgary should follow (besides which, a CFL stadium / field house could be done a whole lot cheaper if the flames were interested in that option -- Wpg did well with $210M). I hope our municipal leadership will continue to show an alternate approach to assholes like Bettman. Then other cities can follow our lead.

bt04ku
Feb 7, 2016, 6:39 PM
I believe you're correct. Although the renovation seemed to be very thorough, and I'm sure there's some extra costs simply associated with renovating a building in Manhattan (and on top of Penn Station).

Not only that, but they're doing it with a 10 year lease, which may or may not end with relocation of the arena.

And renovations to Penn Station will remove The Theatre at MSG regardless of what happens with the lease.

Blue_Cypress
Feb 7, 2016, 10:32 PM
I don't really get the opposition to using public funds to replace McMahon (Saddledome aside). Every single CFL stadium has been built with public funds and pretty much the entire league has built a new one or done significant renovations to the existing facility. Our proposal would have the advantage of the city having the multi-purpose use of a field house, an advantage that is not present in most of the other CFL stadiums. The CFL is not a league of millionaires, like the NHL, the average salary is $80,000. The field house is a facility that our city needs badly, by its own admission. I have no issue with funds going to replacing McMahon in the manner proposed.

Does McMahon need to be replaced? Can we just put a nice roof and glass walls up?

suburbia
Feb 7, 2016, 11:11 PM
I am not talking about the arena, only the field house aspect of it. Yes the Flames owners have money, but they didn't make it through the CFL and the CFL is not a league of massive profits like the NHL. No CFL team is profitable enough to pay for its own building, there is a need for public funds to build a new stadium.

Let me break it down for ya'. The owners who are pulling for a covered stadium in large part paid for by the pubic purse, the football means virtually nothing. It is all about the money they can make from leveraged business the new design would allow. Else, a renovated McMahon would do just fine, and would allow for it to remain a game that is actually about football.

For the amount the owners are asking Calgarians to put up (all in, including clean-up, roads, ticket tax loan backstop), the 500 or so players that play in the CFL for $50K per year would each get $2,000,000.

Does McMahon need to be replaced? Can we just put a nice roof and glass walls up?

I'd imagine a roof would be complex, but making walls, expanding out the concourse and enhancing / adding sf around the perimeter would be easy. The opportunities for the motel village triangle are spectacular.

Innersoul1
Feb 8, 2016, 5:14 PM
Not so sure that's exactly right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MSG just spend around $1B "modernizing" their arena?

Indeed they did. It seems that a lot of associated costs had to do with accommodating their ongoing schedule of events while fitting in the renovations during the summer. I think that we wouldn't have the same challenges in Calgary.

1HhwC_ayDXA

BC21xzl8ol0

Socguy
Feb 8, 2016, 8:41 PM
Not so sure that's exactly right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MSG just spend around $1B "modernizing" their arena?

What no one from the Flames ownership group has spelled out yet is exactly what is wrong with the Saddledome.

As things stand right now, they have the 2nd oldest building in the league but they are in the top half of the league in profit. About the only thing Ken King has mentioned is that the roof can't support the biggest concerts but even he admitted that that's not sufficient reason to build a new arena. The only other criticism from the Flames group is that the 'concourse no longer functions'. I admit that I'm at a loss as to what this means. Does that mean people can no longer walk on it? Are people not able to get to their seats? How exactly does a concourse stop functioning? When we have the answers to questions like these we can decide how much money it will take to fix those issues and if it's even worth fixing them. One would imagine that whatever actual issues they can point to will be well within the scope of 100M to deal with.

Flip this around to the cities perspective and the Saddledome is almost perfect. It's got good transit connections, and it's downtown in about the best place (Stampede) for the city. Most importantly, it's built. The City has far to many pressing concerns that require funding to waste money on replacing a functional building.

There is a reason why Ken King proposed a new arena for the West Side of downtown. It has very little to do with a new home for the Flames and everything to do with raking in a large fortune with a real estate play between him and his buddies.

MalcolmTucker
Feb 8, 2016, 9:02 PM
What no one from the Flames ownership group has spelled out yet is exactly what is wrong with the Saddledome.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/11242185.jpg
Source: http://memegenerator.net/instance/11242185

In 2023 it will be 40 years old. Eventually it will need a lifecycle as extensive as Edmonton's proposed one where the city did a cost, benefit analysis and it was more worth it to replace than renovate. After that, it still won't be able to host all events that 'peer competitor' arenas can because of the roof.

Bigtime
Feb 8, 2016, 9:03 PM
The concourse would function better if they didn't jam bloody GMC vehicles on display everywhere, limiting already tight floor space.

Other areas that do really show the age and design of the concourse that need to be better:

-Washrooms, washrooms, washrooms
-The concourse pinch points where it gets really narrow

MalcolmTucker
Feb 8, 2016, 9:27 PM
The concourse would function better if they didn't jam bloody GMC vehicles on display everywhere, limiting already tight floor space.

Other areas that do really show the age and design of the concourse that need to be better:

-Washrooms, washrooms, washrooms
-The concourse pinch points where it gets really narrow

Yeah, so you get to the Edmonton point where you need to add an outer 'donut' to improve the concourses, if that is what you want to focus on. The number that sticks in my head for the Rexall redo was $264 million, which would have been 2011/12 dollars when it was rejected for the last time.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/anti-downtown-area-activists-want-to-invest-200-million-plus-of-public-money-into-aging-rexall-place

McMurph
Feb 8, 2016, 9:53 PM
The concourse functioned better back as originally designed, when there were open sightless into the larger lower bowl. A lot of the dysfunction has been engineered into the place in an attempt to squeeze more money out of it.

Although I think a new arena would be swell, I'm not buying the "it's the second oldest arena in the league" argument. If that is the sole rationale then I feel bad for the town that currently has the third oldest. Then the fourth oldest. I'll need a new car when my current one stops working, not when I suddenly realize that my neighbours all got one.

And for what it's worth, if they build this thing and still give us the same shitty beer selection I'm going to burn it down.

tomthumb2
Feb 8, 2016, 10:01 PM
The concourse would function better if they didn't jam bloody GMC vehicles on display everywhere, limiting already tight floor space.

Other areas that do really show the age and design of the concourse that need to be better:

-Washrooms, washrooms, washrooms
-The concourse pinch points where it gets really narrow

Oh man I couldn't agree with you more. Those damn cars and trucks really take up a lot of room. Washrooms definitely need to be added as well and the concourse widened. Would it really cost that much to do that??

VIce
Feb 8, 2016, 10:54 PM
Oh man I couldn't agree with you more. Those damn cars and trucks really take up a lot of room. Washrooms definitely need to be added as well and the concourse widened. Would it really cost that much to do that??

So we've finally figured out the real problem: GM needs to make a proper small truck again, instead of this 'mid-sized' Colorado nonsense.

suburbia
Feb 8, 2016, 11:23 PM
So we've finally figured out the real problem: GM needs to make a proper small truck again, instead of this 'mid-sized' Colorado nonsense.

so we've solved the problems by suggesting they park the trucks outside and not inside. brilliant.

VIce
Feb 9, 2016, 1:39 AM
so we've solved the problems by suggesting they park the trucks outside and not inside. brilliant.

No. I've found my narrative and I'm sticking to it.

Innersoul1
Mar 8, 2016, 7:42 PM
I get that the Riders are actually building a stadium. But I really think that If the Flames came at Next with something even as minute as this it would show a bit more of an inspiring vision.

https://twitter.com/sskroughriders/status/706893328919298049?lang=en

tomthumb2
Mar 9, 2016, 6:00 PM
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/update-expected-on-calgarynext-project-1.2809699

It would be awesome if Ken King he announced he was quitting, lol

Innersoul1
Mar 9, 2016, 6:52 PM
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/update-expected-on-calgarynext-project-1.2809699

It would be awesome if Ken King he announced he was quitting, lol

Odd. The article seems to suggest that any useful information is still at least a month away!

Bigtime
Mar 9, 2016, 7:03 PM
The CalgaryNext twitter account replied to CTV's tweet saying there is no update, it's just King's "standard" presentation on the project.

craner
Mar 9, 2016, 7:34 PM
^Oh man, you mean he is still just trotting out the same old dog & pony show he's been doing since August ?
I got a little excited thinking there was an update coming. :(
(I should know better by now)

tomthumb2
Mar 9, 2016, 7:36 PM
The CalgaryNext twitter account replied to CTV's tweet saying there is no update, it's just King's "standard" presentation on the project.

He sure loves that PowerPoint of his doesn't he?

VIce
Mar 9, 2016, 7:53 PM
^Oh man, you mean he is still just trotting out the same old dog & pony show he's been doing since August ?
I got a little excited thinking there was an update coming. :(
(I should know better by now)

You'd think eight months would have been enough time to move from back-of-a-napkin to back-of-an-envelope, but apparently even that type of development schedule was optimistic.

CorporateWhore
Mar 9, 2016, 9:57 PM
I get that the Riders are actually building a stadium. But I really think that If the Flames came at Next with something even as minute as this it would show a bit more of an inspiring vision.

https://twitter.com/sskroughriders/status/706893328919298049?lang=en

That Stadium looks quite nice. Nicer than I thought a place liked Regina would be able to build... although with the Riders being the only game in town, I guess it makes sense.

So with this, is McMahon officially the shittiest stadium in the league? Or does it already hold that title?

lubicon
Mar 9, 2016, 10:37 PM
That Stadium looks quite nice. Nicer than I thought a place liked Regina would be able to build... although with the Riders being the only game in town, I guess it makes sense.

So with this, is McMahon officially the shittiest stadium in the league? Or does it already hold that title?

I'd say it is right there with Taylor Field in Regina at the moment and soon will be hands down the shittiest stadium in the league.

polishavenger
Mar 9, 2016, 10:54 PM
You'd think eight months would have been enough time to move from back-of-a-napkin to back-of-an-envelope, but apparently even that type of development schedule was optimistic.

I think at this point its obvious they are not interested in providing a more refined and better proposal and are just priming the public and politicians for the upcoming big ask, or threat of leaving.

A party acting in good faith would have easily provided better details by now.

speedog
Mar 9, 2016, 10:59 PM
That Stadium looks quite nice. Nicer than I thought a place liked Regina would be able to build... although with the Riders being the only game in town, I guess it makes sense.

So with this, is McMahon officially the shittiest stadium in the league? Or does it already hold that title?

I dunno, the locker room is quite high tech...

http://images.scribblelive.com/2015/9/7/141e6718-eff7-406c-bf55-6aa1f95c3169_500.jpg
courtesy the Calgary SUN

and the east main concourse, it's the bomb...

http://image2.stadiumjourney.com/images/stadiums/1321_The_Concourse_at_McMahon_Stadium.jpg
courtesy Stadium Journey

The luxury suites, well pictures would do them justice but why bother as they're really not that great.

O-tacular
Mar 9, 2016, 11:34 PM
I think at this point its obvious they are not interested in providing a more refined and better proposal and are just priming the public and politicians for the upcoming big ask, or threat of leaving.

A party acting in good faith would have easily provided better details by now.

Oh probably. Frankly the whole thing is getting tiresome and I really don't care until they actually come out with a proposal that's more than a shitty powerpoint.

VIce
Mar 10, 2016, 12:53 AM
I think at this point its obvious they are not interested in providing a more refined and better proposal and are just priming the public and politicians for the upcoming big ask, or threat of leaving.

A party acting in good faith would have easily provided better details by now.

And yet they've even flown in Betman to argue their case. It almost seems like they want a public commitment before they start work on the project in earnest. What big threat do they have? We'll move the Stampeders to Moncton?

craner
Mar 10, 2016, 3:19 AM
That's what it seems like to me too, they don't want to put another cent into designing this thing until they get a commitment on the napkin sketch / powerpoint.
Dissapointing to be sure.

The Chemist
Mar 10, 2016, 3:19 AM
I'd say it is right there with Taylor Field in Regina at the moment and soon will be hands down the shittiest stadium in the league.

Is Percival Molson in Montreal really better than McMahon?

Bigtime
Mar 10, 2016, 1:55 PM
And yet they've even flown in Betman to argue their case. It almost seems like they want a public commitment before they start work on the project in earnest. What big threat do they have? We'll move the Stampeders to Moncton?

That really didn't work out well for them in the public, his one interview with Jim Gray on the Eyeopener was pretty brutal.

McMurph
Mar 10, 2016, 3:25 PM
That really didn't work out well for them in the public, his one interview with Jim Gray on the Eyeopener was pretty brutal.

I heard that interview. Bettman was a complete and absolute prick. Maybe it was a perverse attempt at damage control by the Flames -- showing that by NHL standards King isn't really that much of an asshole.

MasterG
Mar 10, 2016, 5:32 PM
I heard that interview. Bettman was a complete and absolute prick. Maybe it was a perverse attempt at damage control by the Flames -- showing that by NHL standards King isn't really that much of an asshole.

That would give them a lot of super-villian like insight into manipulating the public in a very round-about way. I think it's one of those times where we should never automatically attribute something to malice that can easily be explained with ignorance.

That interview was a PR disaster

Socguy
Mar 10, 2016, 10:39 PM
...That interview was a PR disaster

No doubt! Lets see if I can sum it up the relevant bit for those that never heard it:

Bettman: Blah blah blah blah and soon the Flames will soon be playing in the oldest arena in the NHL. (Implication: unprofitable.)

CBC: So how much does the franchise make at the Saddledome?

Bettman: I can't discuss team finances.

CBC: But you were just making the argument that...

Bettman: Don't interrupt me.

:rolleyes:

bt04ku
Mar 10, 2016, 11:54 PM
I heard that interview. Bettman was a complete and absolute prick. Maybe it was a perverse attempt at damage control by the Flames -- showing that by NHL standards King isn't really that much of an asshole.

The old "put out out an oil fire with dynamite" approach.

The Fisher Account
Mar 18, 2016, 3:35 PM
It's time for new leadership on this project:

QPLw7qncw0k

Halcyon
Mar 18, 2016, 4:41 PM
"Kael-gree-yans"

O-tacular
Mar 18, 2016, 4:52 PM
It's time for new leadership on this project:

QPLw7qncw0k

Yeah that was... Interesting... Nothing like using kids in the video to guilt us into building it.

So KK says Calgary tax payers will only have to pay for the field house and that the Flames ownership will be covering 50% of the cost? Not sure how that adds up. Are they counting on the Feds chipping in now too? Or are they just not counting the upfront cost of the CRL and the loss of the tax base size?

Oh but I forgot there will be a "cool" shuttle service to bring in people parking DT on game nights! Shut up and take my money!:rolleyes:

MalcolmTucker
Mar 18, 2016, 4:53 PM
Probably acting as if the CRL is found money. The city acting as if it is not breaks the myth of the East Village however.

Socguy
Mar 18, 2016, 5:32 PM
Answered zero questions.

-CRL is still the wrong mechanism for funding this complex.
-How is CSE going to fund 50% of this thing? 50% of the total cost to the city or one specific part? Highly misleading statement on KK's part.
-West village doesn't need a catalyst, it's been held back by the contamination and bad road design. Once the CMLC is done with East Village, they will turn their sights to the West. Plunking this complex in the middle will simply be an obstacle to redevelopment.
-The fieldhouse is unfunded because there's no budget. There's no budget because the money needs to go to top priorities like transportation, ie. the green line.
-Calgary already has a sport and entertainment district. It's called the stampede. Keep these things contained in one location.

In a perfect world, we could afford to build cool new arena projects every year. But we live in a world where public budgets are tight and it makes very little sense to duplicate the functional facilities we already have, when the primary beneficiaries would be wealthy private interests.

bt04ku
Mar 18, 2016, 5:37 PM
They consider the CRL only paid by businesses/residences within the area, therefore not affecting other taxpayers.

Which could be good if it means the Flames will be on the hook for any shortfalls in the CRL funding portion but we all know that will never be the case.



EDIT: As somebody on CP pointed out, look what logo made it's way into the renders :rolleyes:

http://i.imgur.com/Iy4LnY8.jpg?1

MalcolmTucker
Mar 18, 2016, 5:42 PM
Please don't conflate wealth with profit.

Perhaps the way to square the circle would be for the CRL to receive as land rent excess facility revenue. Of course, there would be the problem of profit from direct Flames activities counting towards the NHL collective bargaining agreement. Possibly you could have a variable Flames only ticket tax equal to a percentage of improved 'take' per guest. That would require the Flames opening the books though.

craner
Mar 20, 2016, 10:19 PM
So reading these articles about BMO Cetre expansion and resulting demo of the Corral - one thing made me go Hmmmm.

Corral completed 1950, replaced by Saddledome 1983, total 33 year span.
Saddledome completed 1983, currently 2016 so 33 year span.
Perhaps it is time to replace it.

That said I still think McMahon is the much more pressing need, just not with an indoor fieldhouse.
I don't mind the West Village location, just need to see more development of the plan.

CrossedTheTracks
Mar 21, 2016, 12:46 AM
So reading these articles about BMO Cetre expansion and resulting demo of the Corral - one thing made me go Hmmmm.

Corral completed 1950, replaced by Saddledome 1983, total 33 year span.
Saddledome completed 1983, currently 2016 so 33 year span.
Perhaps it is time to replace it.


Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, given that:
- Corral seats only 6475 (whether or not it was outdated, Flames needed more seating than that)
- It has continued operations since 1983, so giving it a mere 33-year lifespan is not entirely accurate -- though obviously, the nature of the events it has hosted changed quite a bit since the Saddledome was constructed!

Innersoul1
Mar 21, 2016, 8:03 PM
Some observations from the clip:

-Cool shuttle service :) Since when are buses cool? I don't get it, if Sunalta Station is attached to the building isn't that the shuttle service?

-If you look at 2:05 of the clip it seems to suggest that Bow Trail is buried, however, in the rendering that follow it's not. Wonder what the vision is.

-The more I look at this I hate the idea of the mixed field house stadium concept. I mean, I really like the idea that the building will be used beyond the few CFL games but they really need to execute on this. The renderings still show a really small seating area that doesn't seem fantastic for fans. Such a shame given what Saskatchewan is getting.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 21, 2016, 8:19 PM
~30,000 for football, much less for track and field. Every metre added to the width of the roof makes it more expensive unfortunately.

geotag277
Mar 21, 2016, 8:26 PM
Please don't conflate wealth with profit.

Perhaps the way to square the circle would be for the CRL to receive as land rent excess facility revenue. Of course, there would be the problem of profit from direct Flames activities counting towards the NHL collective bargaining agreement. Possibly you could have a variable Flames only ticket tax equal to a percentage of improved 'take' per guest. That would require the Flames opening the books though.

At the end of the day, I think the only path forward that makes sense for the city to invest these kinds of funds into a commercial stadium project mainly for professional sports use is to coerce the team owners into doing something that likely the NHL does not want to set a precedent for (whether through public ownership, profit sharing, open the books transparency, etc.) - and that will likely be the main point of contention.

artvandelay
Mar 21, 2016, 9:25 PM
-The more I look at this I hate the idea of the mixed field house stadium concept. I mean, I really like the idea that the building will be used beyond the few CFL games but they really need to execute on this. The renderings still show a really small seating area that doesn't seem fantastic for fans. Such a shame given what Saskatchewan is getting.

I like the concept of getting more than occasional use out of a stadium, but the execution is critical. It's going to be a massive challenge for whomever designs this thing to ensure that it has the feel of a professional venue rather than an oversized Jack Simpson gym.

hulkrogan
Mar 21, 2016, 10:35 PM
I like the concept of getting more than occasional use out of a stadium, but the execution is critical. It's going to be a massive challenge for whomever designs this thing to ensure that it has the feel of a professional venue rather than an oversized Jack Simpson gym.

Considering every indoor multipurpose stadium ever built in the history of mankind has sucked, I don't have much faith in this group being the one to pull it off given the track record so far.

Fuzz
Mar 22, 2016, 11:47 AM
Considering every indoor multipurpose stadium ever built in the history of mankind has sucked, I don't have much faith in this group being the one to pull it off given the track record so far.
I dunno, the Roman Coliseum was pretty sweet. They had everything from Gladiator matches to boat battles. :D

Innersoul1
Mar 22, 2016, 3:03 PM
I like the concept of getting more than occasional use out of a stadium, but the execution is critical. It's going to be a massive challenge for whomever designs this thing to ensure that it has the feel of a professional venue rather than an oversized Jack Simpson gym.

Spot on with this. There are so many design challenges that will come into play especially making the seats comfortable and not have them feel tacked on. it would be cool of they went with a clear roof.

aOY441p5u8

Considering every indoor multipurpose stadium ever built in the history of mankind has sucked, I don't have much faith in this group being the one to pull it off given the track record so far.

It has massive potential to be shit LOL. I guess it depend on how much they are willing to pour into it.