If the relocation goes as smoothly as the CalgaryNext proposal, it'll be fun to watch, from a Calgary perspective.
Is it wrong, that i'm actually rooting for a relocation? I envision Benny Hill music in the background.
Then maybe we can embrace an ownership group who can appreciate the fans and market that is Calgary.
There won't be another ownership group. If the Flames do leave, the NHL will not return with a new rink in place, and no so called ownership group is going to build a building in the hopes of attracting a franchise. Its that simple. If the Flames did leave and the city hoped to attract a new franchise the city would have to completely pony up for a new rink.
There won't be new owners, there won't be a new team relocating to calgary.
To sit there and basically hope that the team leaves and a new miracle comes to town is unrealistic.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
It's obvious Ken King isn't the man to lead this project. This arena deal has been bubbling for what ten years now? Should have stepped down when the loud thud bellowed out as CalgaryNext hit the floor almost two years ago.
Lets remember, he also stepped away from the hockey operations to lead this effort.
Weird, didn't the hockey team turn around shortly after the time he did that?
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
yeah, why worry about people fleeing from war and the prospect of death when we can have Taylor Swift concerts.
Worry about those people when you have figured out how to deal with homeless in Canada, when you have figured out how to get better education to the Canadian children, when you figured out how to make economy better. Worry about those people when you fixed the problems facing Canadians.
There was a Canadian veteran, who was not getting his pension and had to rely on others to get his food, worry about these Canadians first.
Worry about those people when you have figured out how to deal with homeless in Canada, when you have figured out how to get better education to the Canadian children, when you figured out how to make economy better. Worry about those people when you fixed the problems facing Canadians.
Build arena, let homeless live there?
Your stance is so contrary to itself that it's legitimately hilarious.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Except land and infrastructure. They built a road and extended the public transit out there.
And most people, even people like me who oppose money for the building itself, are in favor or providing support infrastructure. Seems like everything is there to make this happen, except maybe the Flames are desperately holding out for CalgaryNEXT even though most people don't want it.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Worry about those people when you have figured out how to deal with homeless in Canada, when you have figured out how to get better education to the Canadian children, when you figured out how to make economy better. Worry about those people when you fixed the problems facing Canadians.
There was a Canadian veteran, who was not getting his pension and had to rely on others to get his food, worry about these Canadian first.
If you want Trump as your leader as it appears you do, may I suggest you apply for American citizenship?
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
There is something wrong with you, there Canadian veteran that are not getting what they deserve but get the money to the refugees, so they can drive their BMW's.
There won't be another ownership group. If the Flames do leave, the NHL will not return with a new rink in place, and no so called ownership group is going to build a building in the hopes of attracting a franchise. Its that simple. If the Flames did leave and the city hoped to attract a new franchise the city would have to completely pony up for a new rink.
There won't be new owners, there won't be a new team relocating to calgary.
To sit there and basically hope that the team leaves and a new miracle comes to town is unrealistic.
Calgary is in the top half for revenue in the entire NHL. There are at least a half dozen teams not spending to the cap and losing millions of dollars year over year. If you believe A. that the flames would move B. other owners aren't envious of the Calgary market, then you're only fooling yourself.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
There is something wrong with you, there Canadian veteran that are not getting what they deserve but get the money to the refugees, so they can drive their BMW's.
And most people, even people like me who oppose money for the building itself, are in favor or providing support infrastructure. Seems like everything is there to make this happen, except maybe the Flames are desperately holding out for CalgaryNEXT even though most people don't want it.
No, a lot of people are saying no funding at all.
Drop the clean up and field house and they are almost fully funding the arena by themselves. Flames should just drop all that nonsense. Let the city build a field house and clean up the west end themselves. Arena is all that matters. East Village is a fine location.
In my dream world, the LRT gets extended to the airport and Balzac and the building get's built there. They could fund the building themselves and the LRT should go to the airport anyway.
frinkprof posted this yesterday in one of the arena threads. It's a well thought out piece that should be here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof
Some thoughts.
Thread Cleanup and Moderation
This is starting to get ridiculous. There are now basically 3 threads with two poorly-formed polls (one better than the other, mind you) covering basically the same thing. Could some threads be merged or closed entirely please? Should just be a single thread as it's basically the same central discussion.
West Village Plans, Contamination, etc.
There seems to be a lack of context regarding the issue of contamination and some of the argumentation coming out of it.
First, it should be said that land being contaminated to some degree is actually more common than many people think. The West Village land is among of the most sizable and prominent but there are plenty of other examples in the city (spoilered for length):
Spoiler!
- Parts of the current Quarry Park development are contaminated, mainly the parts where there is surface parking, as that was all you could economically do with those areas. Doing more with these areas would have meant doing costly cleanup.
- The former Hub Oil site at 17th Avenue and 60th Street SE. There was an explosion at the Hub Oil refinery in 1999, and this combined with the refinery actually operating has left the soil contaminated. There had been plans to put a "cap" (bring in new dirt over top of the contaminated dirt) on the existing site and having buildings with slab-on grade construction (minimal digging and building underground). This hasn't come to pass yet.
- The land that Deerfoot Meadows now sits on was contaminated to some degree if I recall correctly. At the very least the land was relatively difficult to build on. Again, not much else you could do economically other than surface parking lots and slab-on-grade buildings.
- Lots of sites in the SE industrial areas are contaminated and won't be able to have other uses when the Green Line LRT goes through and development pressures follow. An example is the former dry waste landfill in Ogden. In some cases, the cleanup may be economical, in many cases it won't be.
- The other strongly rumoured sites for the new stadium/arena project were probably contaminated too. Firepark (former tire plant at Memorial Drive and Deerfoot Trail) certainly is contaminated. The Railtown lands at 4th Street East and 11th Avenue SE, being former CPR lands for years and used for their operations, would almost certainly require some cleanup.
- Extending the discussion a bit, there are lots of sour gas wells that are relatively close to existing development in the city, most prominently in the far NE. Some have been eventually dealt with, others have inhibited what can be built and when.
It's very common for cities in general to have prominent areas be contaminated too. Basically, old industrial sites, especially near railways or ports are prone to being contaminated. As central areas of a growing city (that naturally followed industrial growth around these areas) become more valuable and attractive for high-intensity commercial and residential uses, the impetus to clean up these areas grows and becomes viable at some point. This is hardly a Calgary-specific issue.
Examples from other cities include the Quarry Lands in Toronto, Rock Bay in Victoria, the site of the former Sir John Carling Building and future hospital in Ottawa. Edmonton is just taking on a giant site of their own with the closing of the Municipal Airport. That's just Canada, examples abound elsewhere.
There is a lot of nuance with Calgary's West Village. First of all, the City already has various renewal projects going in other blighted or otherwise underdeveloped areas. Namely, East Village (with City involvement through CRL). Furthermore, other otherwise underdeveloped areas of the inner city have and will see significant private development, particularly Beltline, Hillhurst/Sunnyside, Bridgeland, Mission, Inglewood.
Given this, "holding back" with West Village is purposeful and strategic. First, opening up West Village now would cannibalize the demand for development in these other areas, leaving them half (or less)-finished, which is not ideal. West Village has a few key characteristics:
- Connectivity: It is hemmed in by the Bow River and its escarpment, interchanges, major roads and a rail line. Adjacent neighbourhoods or properties are significantly hindered, cut off or having their redevelopment stunted if it sits as-is for awhile.
- Containment: the contamination is not worsening, and it is reasonably well contained.
- No existing permanent population: No one is currently living in West Village, so there's much less duty of care to improve the area or entice development so it fills with amenities right now.
- It is of the size and nature that, once cleanup commences, it is important that development follow in earnest and the neighbourhood will approach a "completed" feel relatively quickly. This can happen only under the right conditions. Those conditions are: not competing with other nearby developments of a similar nature (i.e. East Village, Beltline); site is ready during or approaching the up side of a building cycle economically; and given the heavy inputs for the CRL (cleanup) are maximally offset by the outputs (increased property taxes from the developable land).
The last point especially is what sinks the CalgaryNEXT concept.
I'm not sure this has been mentioned yet (the City of Calgary West Village Area Redevelopment Plan has been posted already), but how this came about is that the City was originally going to bid on the 2017 World Expo and use the West Village as the main site for pavilions, etc. When it was decided not to bid, the ARP was created instead as during the process, many of the above points became became apparent as opportunities, etc.
Politics, etc.
For those wanting the politics to end from the City "side" (although I do wonder why there are sides in this, when it's frankly a bad deal for the City and there's only one entity with a need here), need to realize that this sort of proposition is inherently political and that the CSEC is playing politics too in a bad way. First of all, it is proposing using public money. Second piece of evidence is that 960 interview. Also, what we know about the timeline (roughly) is:
- CSEC starts to get serious about their vision and has a few meetings with City officials and the mayor. They are told West Village is a bad idea, based on the above, and that the City would be hesitant to support it, at best.
- CSEC goes ahead with West Village vision anyway, meanwhile mayor and coucilors put out not so subtle hints that there is no appetite for the Edmonton deal.
- CSEC holds a bad public presentation about their ill-advised West Village vision before submitting anything formal to the City in terms of either a land use application, development permit or business proposition.
The presentation is CSEC trying to jump past any formal engagement about the specific project with the City to try to garner emotional support from the populace. That's playing politics.
Then of course there is that 960 radio interview.
---------------
Personally, the veiled threats to leave in that radio interview is it for me. Was going to buy a Flames jersey for an upcoming birthday for someone, and also get some playoff tickets to take someone to their first playoff game. Those are now off the table after this.
I will cheer on the Flames, but am going to seriously curtail any money I spend on them until CSEC smartens up and stops using the "we're leaving" bluff. It's insulting.
__________________
FiftyBelow
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FiftyBelow For This Useful Post:
