[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by nik-

Sorry but infrastructure costs are part of the project and paid for by the citizens whether you think it's lame or not. True cost is what matters here.

Most of the infrastructure costs for the West Village will have to be paid even without CalgaryNEXT. The Bow Trail realignment, and a complete rebuild of the Bow-Crow No-Go nightmare and the botched 14th Street interchange, should both have been done years ago. Putting an arena complex on the contaminated land wasn't going to make those projects any more expensive. It was only going to make it impossible for the City to ignore the problem any longer.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Most of the infrastructure costs for the West Village will have to be paid even without CalgaryNEXT. The Bow Trail realignment, and a complete rebuild of the Bow-Crow No-Go nightmare and the botched 14th Street interchange, should both have been done years ago. Putting an arena complex on the contaminated land wasn't going to make those projects any more expensive. It was only going to make it impossible for the City to ignore the problem any longer.

Bow/Crow is not in the 300 million of infrastructure identified as part of the project as far as I was aware.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GGG

Bow/Crow is not in the 300 million of infrastructure identified as part of the project as far as I was aware.

I believe the City included the cost of a Bow Trail realignment as part of the cost of CalgaryNEXT. That doesn't cover the interchange, but it is part and parcel of the interchange project, as it would make no sense to realign Bow Trail and then have to do it again when the interchange is rebuilt.

(Furthermore, I note that the CalgaryNEXT plan called for no realignment of Bow Trail at all. It seems rather odd that the City should add a cost for something that was not even part of CSEC's plan, and then claim that CSEC wants the City to incur that cost.)

[Roughneck]

IIRC they're still coming up with the best plan for Bow/Crow/Memorial and the bridge. 4 or so plans went out for public consultation and it'll be a while before anything is really set.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I believe the City included the cost of a Bow Trail realignment as part of the cost of CalgaryNEXT. That doesn't cover the interchange, but it is part and parcel of the interchange project, as it would make no sense to realign Bow Trail and then have to do it again when the interchange is rebuilt.

(Furthermore, I note that the CalgaryNEXT plan called for no realignment of Bow Trail at all. It seems rather odd that the City should add a cost for something that was not even part of CSEC's plan, and then claim that CSEC wants the City to incur that cost.)

The realignment of Bow Trail was part of the city's original ARP for the West Village because improving the riverfront's public access is an important part of making the area better. The pathways walled off by Bow Tail and in the shadow of the arena/fieldhouse doesn't make for a good public space. Realign Bow Teail and its better. Not great, but better.

Improving the public realm as part of this massive 'public' project is a necessity the Flames original plan didn't consider.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, this is how you handle applying for a franchise when you haven't already got a stadium. MLB has a lot of conditions that must be met before it will give a city a team, especially a city that has lost one already. Building a new venue for an existing franchise is a different matter entirely.

How is it different?

Both need a new stadium, both want taxpayer money. Why should a team not have multiple options for such an occasions. Oilers did too.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Cappy

This is how you handle arena/stadium locations:

They don't even have a team yet, but they have multiple locations and designs.

Ken King = no good

If the Flames had support from two levels of government, shovels would already be in the ground on a new arena.


Also, having multiple locations and designs still on the drawing board really means that they have nothing ready to go. For many years, Ken King got up in front of season tickets holders and said "we have identified four possible locations". That wasn't a sign that they were really close to getting something done.

Hell, even when he got up and showed off their one final idea, people pushed back. I'm sure even if he had proposed a new arena-only project at the Stampede Grounds, a lot of people still would have hated it.

Also, when you're just agreeing to basic ideas, it's easy to get government support in principle. Things change when it comes time for people to start signing contracts and writing cheques.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Cappy

How is it different?

Both need a new stadium, both want taxpayer money. Why should a team not have multiple options for such an occasions. Oilers did too.

The Montreal group is not asking MLB for public money. They have to have public money already committed (by at least two levels of government, it appears) as a condition of being granted a franchise. If they were going to the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec to ask for public money, it would be entirely idiotic of the city and province to make that public money conditional on the owners having already secured a commitment of public money.

The situations are not comparable in any way.

[longsuffering]

....so the project takes up x% of the space in west village but generates zero tax revenue for the city and the CRL?

...... so the City would own both facilities and would be on the hook for demolition and rehab of the old facilities, while presumably the Flames would ready to demand new facilities.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

King's comments on 960 today:

"...we've always said, by the way, if the world doesn't want us around, or doesn't care where we play, or anything else, then just say so..."

Sounds like an implied relocation threat to me.

It amazes me that he would say something so misleading/manipulative. Honest to god, when I read that quote the first thing that came to mind for some reason was Donald Trump's voice.

No Ken, we're not saying that. We're saying your idea was a dumb idea so get on with figuring out a cool Plan B and we'll get on board.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

It amazes me that he would say something so misleading/manipulative.

The whole interview was like that. The best part is when he complained that it's difficult to get your point across to the public about such a complex project in short 5 minute interviews, then used the 30 minutes SN960 gave him to burble out a stream of empty platitudes and misleading assertions.

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

No Ken, we're not saying that. We're saying your idea was a dumb idea so get on with figuring out a cool Plan B and we'll get on board.

Listening to a bit of his spiel yesterday, all I kept coming back to was all the season ticket holder meetings years ago that they had this really awesome plan that were about to release any day now. I just can't believe that it has been Calgary Next the whole time.

[jayswin]

Wasn't it 2007 the Flames first mentioned the new arena? If so, we're officially celebrating the ten year anniversary of our new arena......discussion.

[Bingo]

Yeah I'm not a big fan of some of King's comments either ... guess that makes both sides of this silly.

I can understand his being frustrated with Nenshi's actions, but to even subtly hint at moving is way off side in my mind. Hope he had the owners ok with that or he could be in some hot water.

If its not a bluff I guess that's different, but still not a card anyone appreciates.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The city should be a partner in this if they believe that having a pro NHL team is important to the overall make-up of Calgary.

This isn't just about the Flames making more money.

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

Because we (including you Nik) have to accept that, at some level, this is a partnership. Maybe not 50/50, but it still is one. The Flames want/need a building, and the city is a part of that process.

In what way is the Flames/City of Calgary relationship like a partnership?

Does the City share in the revenue or profit from the team? No?

They they must receive a share of the increase of the value of the franchise over the time they've been in Calgary. No?

Oh well, at least the City is receiving tax revenue from the land and building. Oh, they're not?

Great partnership.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And that's what I'm talking about.

Lets get tangible about this. the city doesn't want a big facility on the river is a great reason to not do it. They have another vision with a smaller foot print for an anchor tenant ... have no problem with that.

The funding though ... counter then. Counter with the city doing nothing but infrastructure and creosote clean up and the rest is the CSE's issue.

That funding model is an opening volley, that's all it was every stated to be.

But for the love of pete just stop with the rhetoric Nenshi, we're all tired of it.

You can't help yourself Bingo. I don't think you realized just how much your fandom is clouding this issue. You keep stating you're unbiased but you only push the Flames agenda and excuse their every misstep, before laying it at Nenshi's feet.

Other posters have repeatedly explained why the West Village is a complete non-starter. (No tax revenue to support the project being a major one) but you just brush those explanations aside and insist the City must act next. Nenshi outlined ALL the reasons to CSEC but those explanations didn't fit with the team's version of reality.

Right now, the City doesn't even have a proper proposal to consider. What do they counter? How do they counter? Ask the Flames how much they want and open their chequebook?

Nenshi was right from the outset. The Flames should buy some land, then come to the City and say "we're ready to build, let's talk".

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

In what way is the Flames/City of Calgary relationship like a partnership?

Does the City share in the revenue or profit from the team? No?

They they must receive a share of the increase of the value of the franchise over the time they've been in Calgary. No?

Oh well, at least the City is receiving tax revenue from the land and building. Oh, they're not?

Great partnership.

Look, I'm obviously on the city's side here but let's not be naïve. The location of a new arena will obviously affect the city's growth & development plans for the surrounding area (as would, to the extreme extent, the relocation of the Flames). The city clearly has a vested interest here. They are absolutely partners to some extent in this process.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Look it was a starting point, a professional response would have had the "bad idea" answer arrived upon 12 months ago.

That's the problem right there. I (and seemingly dozens of other posters) saw and heard Nenshi communicate that sentiment loudly, clearly, and repeatedly but you somehow missed it.

I don't know how that is even possible. Blinded by your distaste for Nenshi perhaps?

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

King's comments on 960 today:

"...we've always said, by the way, if the world doesn't want us around, or doesn't care where we play, or anything else, then just say so..."

Sounds like an implied relocation threat to me.

Threats are the biggest way to withdraw support away from the Flames.
I am disappointed the Flames would resort to this tactic this early in negotiations. The Flames are the ones that are dragging this process out. 10 years and counting. How long did it take for the city to respond to Calgary Next? Just a fraction of those 10 years. The Flames still haven't responded in a significant way.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Nenshi was right from the outset. The Flames should buy some land, then come to the City and say "we're ready to build, let's talk".

And then the City's logical next move is to say, ‘No, you can't build an arena there. Go buy land at a different site.’

How many parcels of land does CSEC have to buy before they are allowed to talk to the City about planning issues and permits?