Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum

View Poll Results: Do you support the current version of CalgaryNEXT?
Yes 163 25.39%
No 356 55.45%
Undecided 123 19.16%
Voters: 642. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-04-2016, 04:26 PM   #21
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

West village is too far from downtown in my opinion to really generate an entertainment hub type experience. Its farther than where the saddledome is right now.
Weitz is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 04:26 PM   #22
Bunk
Franchise Player
 
Bunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug View Post
I can't speak to Nationwide arena, but Verizon is a good one for sure. I don't think the WV precludes a similar effect though, as there really is no sense as to what the project would look like, if the football stadium/fieldhouse is removed. Same with Bunk's proposal. That could be a good location, but the train stations would still involve a decent hike and it obviously doesn't include the football stadium.
I don't have a major issue disaggregating the project, but it is comparing apples and oranges for sure.
Verizon would be like if we stuck the arena at say 9th Ave and 5th Street SW, right in the heart of downtown. Verizon is very much in the midst of downtown DC office area, very built up urban fabric. West Village is an almost blank slate.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Bunk is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Old 01-04-2016, 04:34 PM   #23
Fighting Banana Slug
#1 Goaltender
 
Fighting Banana Slug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk View Post
Verizon would be like if we stuck the arena at say 9th Ave and 5th Street SW, right in the heart of downtown. Verizon is very much in the midst of downtown DC office area, very built up urban fabric. West Village is an almost blank slate.
The DC core is obviously very different than Calgary, but I don't think WV is that far off. Verizon is a hike to get to the Mall and other touristy sites. If the football stadium is removed from the plan, I would think WV could be quite an attractive site.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Fighting Banana Slug is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 04:35 PM   #24
Table 5
Franchise Player
 
Table 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripin_billie View Post
In comparison, the Flames have picked a questionable site and have proposed a design that creates a non-integrated, offset monolith. I highly doubt it would successfully revitalize the location.
Solid post and I agree that the Flames proposal managed to strike out in pretty much all ways manageable.

1. The funding model is terribly one-sided.

2. The location itself, even if it were ready to build on, is questionable considering it necessitates building of an entirely new district when there are already much more natural options from a transportation, infrastructure, and entertainment perspective. Why build a new sports/entertainment district when one already exists?

3. The stadium concept itself is monolothic and cold. Just when everyone is looking to make their stadiums more human-scaled and friendly, the Flames are basically proposing to build Skydome 2.0.

What the Flames want to build, where they want to build it, and how they want to pay for it, is pretty much an uphill battle in all respects. There's nothing here that just fits naturally, and that you can really get behind. Even if they hoodwinked their citizens, at least what the Oilers are building is a well-designed project in the perfect location.
Table 5 is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 04:39 PM   #25
The Yen Man
Franchise Player
 
The Yen Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Yah, hate to admit it, but the arena is one thing the Oilers definitely got right over the Flames right now. Their on ice management might suck, but at least their team overseeing the arena development seem pretty good.

Lol, is Ken King the Kevin Lowe equivalent in terms of Flames business operations?
The Yen Man is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 05:17 PM   #26
tripin_billie
#1 Goaltender
 
tripin_billie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: DC
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug View Post
The DC core is obviously very different than Calgary, but I don't think WV is that far off. Verizon is a hike to get to the Mall and other touristy sites. If the football stadium is removed from the plan, I would think WV could be quite an attractive site.
Verizon Center is about 5 minute walk from the mall, about 15 to the capital, and within 5 minutes of all 6 metro lines. I walk over to Gallery Place for lunch from a few blocks east, the restaurants are busy all day and then all evening. But it's just one of DC's downtown neighborhoods.

DC is really pedestrian, bike share, and metro-centric, which means people will walk all over about a 2 square mile area of downtown. Then, essentially all of the residential neighborhoods actually in the district are row houses and mixed with commercial. It's a walking paradise.

I'm not sure if Calgary, given the design and weather, could ever achieve something that would match the business of Verizon Center. But it could definitely, if the right location and design were picked, pull off something like the Arena District in Columbus. I'd just make the Flames pay for it.
tripin_billie is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 05:35 PM   #27
Zarley
First Line Centre
 
Zarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

There's nothing wrong with the location itself. It is the most blighted area in close proximity to the downtown core and it will require significant public investment to remedy regardless of how the area is development. It's the design of the stadium/arena complex and the district as a whole that is the problem.

The way the Flames have handled this really bothers me. The location is great, the concept is good, we are in desperate need of a new stadium, and a Melbourne style central sports and entertainment precinct would be a great asset to the city. The poor design they've provided has killed public enthusiasm for what could be a really great project.
Zarley is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 05:48 PM   #28
Table 5
Franchise Player
 
Table 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley View Post
The way the Flames have handled this really bothers me. The location is great, the concept is good, we are in desperate need of a new stadium, and a Melbourne style central sports and entertainment precinct would be a great asset to the city. The poor design they've provided has killed public enthusiasm for what could be a really great project.
The thing is that we all kind of already have one of those in Vic Park/East Village. There are existing sports venues, casinos, restaurants, bars, public transit lines, new residential condos, soon to be new museums/library/hotels...all within walking distance. There's still plenty of room for improvement, but the momentum is there.

Why try to create a new sports/entertainment district from scratch, when you can just further improve the existing one? Trying to recreate everything in WV will stunt what's happening in Vic Park, and in the end we'll probably end up with two mediocre ones.
Table 5 is offline  
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-04-2016, 06:00 PM   #29
Zarley
First Line Centre
 
Zarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5 View Post
The thing is that we all kind of already have one of those in Vic Park/East Village. There are existing sports venues, casinos, restaurants, bars, public transit lines, new residential condos, soon to be new museums/library/hotels...all within walking distance. There's still plenty of room for improvement, but the momentum is there.

Why try to create a new sports/entertainment district from scratch, when you can just further improve the existing one? Trying to recreate everything in WV will stunt what's happening in Vic Park, and in the end we'll probably end up with two mediocre ones.
I'd argue that what we have now is an incredibly weak example of a sports/entertainment district if you can even define it as one. It's more of a lose collection of venues that operate independently. Transit access to Vic Park is okay but the WV site is superior and the biggest problem with the area you propose is that there's not enough room for a stadium unless it's on the Remington lands, which are a non-starter due to costs.
Zarley is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 06:37 PM   #30
Table 5
Franchise Player
 
Table 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley View Post
I'd argue that what we have now is an incredibly weak example of a sports/entertainment district if you can even define it as one. It's more of a lose collection of venues that operate independently.
There's definitely room for improvement, which is why something more organized like in Bunk's sketch would help tie it all together. But in this case, to do it right, you don't have to spend possibly billions to remediate several city blocks, re-align Bow trail (and perhaps 14th), and create brand new infrastructure for every new entertainment venue.

Quote:
Transit access to Vic Park is okay but the WV site is superior
How so? Once the Greenline is built, a Remington/Stampede location would have access to 3 stations that support all 3 LRT lines. WV would at best have access to 2 stations, supporting only 2 lines. The only benefit I see to WV is easier access to the bike/pathway system, but that's not as beneficial in the winter.

Quote:
and the biggest problem with the area you propose is that there's not enough room for a stadium unless it's on the Remington lands, which are a non-starter due to costs.
Well sure if the Flames expect land for free in WV, than every other piece of land is a non-starter!

I'm sure Remington would ask for a large amount, but considering the remediation/alignment costs that simply can't be ignored to even get to a ground-breaking, is WV really any cheaper in the long-term?
Table 5 is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-04-2016, 06:54 PM   #31
Ducay
Franchise Player
 
Ducay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Can someone ELI5 as to why building on any of the empty Stampede parking lots just north or south, or west of the Dome (like Bunk's drawing), isn't CSE's first plan? Is it the Stampede corp stopping it? City? Private landowners?

Always seemed like a no brainer to just take over some of the existing lot space and then return the Dome's footprint to parking to offset that lost.
Ducay is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 06:58 PM   #32
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley View Post
I'd argue that what we have now is an incredibly weak example of a sports/entertainment district if you can even define it as one. It's more of a lose collection of venues that operate independently. Transit access to Vic Park is okay but the WV site is superior and the biggest problem with the area you propose is that there's not enough room for a stadium unless it's on the Remington lands, which are a non-starter due to costs.
I wouldn't call the WV superior for transit access. Least traveled train line with a small train stop..
Weitz is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 07:55 PM   #33
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay View Post
Can someone ELI5 as to why building on any of the empty Stampede parking lots just north or south, or west of the Dome (like Bunk's drawing), isn't CSE's first plan? Is it the Stampede corp stopping it? City? Private landowners?

Always seemed like a no brainer to just take over some of the existing lot space and then return the Dome's footprint to parking to offset that lost.
It would be on Stampede Park property and the Flames are apparently sick of having to deal with the Stampede Board.

I had assumed that the issue was lost parking revenue because the Stampede runs the parking lots around the Dome and collects all of the revenue from it, and the Flames were losing out on quite a lot of money. However, the CalgaryNext proposal includes very little on-site parking, so that must not be a big concern for them.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 08:14 PM   #34
Barnes
Franchise Player
 
Barnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Violating Copyrights
Exp:
Default

I'd love to see the poll on this thread reset. I, like many others probably voted soon after the presentation. I know I would vote differently now.
Barnes is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Barnes For This Useful Post:
Old 01-04-2016, 08:22 PM   #35
browna
Franchise Player
 
browna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak View Post
It would be on Stampede Park property and the Flames are apparently sick of having to deal with the Stampede Board.
Yup, the owners want nothing to do with the Stampede board and their meddling. That's about as important a factor as anything else in this project, and has been since the very start of this.
browna is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 08:34 PM   #36
Kjesse
Retired
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

Just for comparison sake, not that this means anything substantial, but the Flames have roughly 780K visitors in a 41 game season, the Stampede over 10 days has around 1.1 million. Probably more repeat visitors in the Flames numbers however.
Kjesse is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 09:17 PM   #37
Nobama
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay View Post
Can someone ELI5 as to why building on any of the empty Stampede parking lots just north or south, or west of the Dome (like Bunk's drawing), isn't CSE's first plan? Is it the Stampede corp stopping it? City? Private landowners?

Always seemed like a no brainer to just take over some of the existing lot space and then return the Dome's footprint to parking to offset that lost.
Why was I under the assumption that an Olympic built building cannot be torn down? Has anyone ever heard that? I would hate to see the dome get torn down as its a distinguishing feature to the Calgary skyline.

Also after attending a Winnipeg Jets game recently all I can say is the Dome is 100x better than that arena! Seats are tiny, venue is tiny. Made me really appreciate the dome. I've been to some new arenas too, the Dallas Stars arena is nice. I don't know what the best plan is here but I am fairly certain the proposal is terrible.
Nobama is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 11:20 PM   #38
Frequitude
Franchise Player
 
Frequitude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 555 Saddledome Rise SE
Exp:
Default

Where does this Stampede - Flames disagreement/problems story come from? I've never heard anything about it and in speaking with a former board member it has been suggested to me that the relationship is positive.
Frequitude is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 11:29 PM   #39
Magnum PEI
Lifetime Suspension
 
Magnum PEI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Exp:
Default

Wasn't the Flood part of the reason they didn't want it near the Stampede grounds? Or is that more posturing from Ken King? With the Province doing mitigation it doesn't seem like it would be as big a deal to have it in a flood zone now.
Magnum PEI is offline  
Old 01-05-2016, 02:14 AM   #40
krazycanuck
Won the Worst Son Ever Award
 
krazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sherwood Park
Exp:
Default

I've been hoping for a long time that the Flames and the Stampede board would come up with a solution together.

Having a stadium located around where the Saddledome is currently would provide the Stampede with a new and better location for the rodeo. They are currently limited in the number of premium seats that they can offer at the Grandstand. Those seats currently are very hard to get and I'd have to think lots of potential revenue is being left on the table. Not only could they use it for the rodeo during stampede but at night it would give them a place to hold big concerts like they do in Houston at NRG Stadium during RodeoHouston. Now instead of only being a 10 football game a year venue, they can add 10 days of rodeo and nightly concerts during the stampede. If the building has a roof (preferably retractable) they now have extra convention space and even more days of use outside of Stampede. It also gives them another venue they can sell the naming rights on.

With the Stampede being the primary tenant, I think that would open up funding options from the provincial and federal government as well to get it done. They each pitched in $25 million for the Agrium events centre when it was built. If each level of government contributed $50m, The Flames/Stamps throw in 25 million, the stampede does 25 million and another 75-100m coming from a ticket tax they could get a nice venue done coming in at around $275-$300 million (the same as Regina's new stadium).

Think about the parking revenue the Stampede would lose if the Flames left. Their 4,000 parking spaces bring in $60,000 per game. or $2,700,000 over 45 games. That doesn't factor in playoff games, Hitmen games, Roughneck games, concerts and anything else that happens at the Saddledome.

If the Flames were to leave the Stampede grounds any plans that do remain for the Stampede Trail and Stampede hotel plan would have to be shelved as I don't think it would be plausible to have that work without the arena bringing people to the area 100+ days of the year.

If the Flames are still willing to contribute for the arena, and have their ticket tax that could get done on it's own. Land would still be owned by the Stampede. The Stampede boards benefit would be they get to keep their parking revenue and would have a brand new arena to anchor around their retail and entertainment destination dreams. They could also have an agreement in place like they do currently to allow the Stampede to use the venue during the festival in July.

The Flames would have their new arena, they wouldn't need to pay for land and there would be no public money going towards the rink.

The Stampeders would have a new place to play to solidify their revenues

The Stampede would maintain their existing revenues from parking and be able to generate new revenues through the new stadium/convention space and potentially their hotel and retail plans

The neighbourhood has the potential to be a destination and an exciting community year round

The city gets to keep the west village in their back pocket as their next east village type project

The city's contribution to an eventual fieldhouse would mean it would be used 365 days a year for its intended purpose, and not an occasional pro stadium

There is no reworking of major roads to make it work

Everything remains central

Make it happen.
krazycanuck is offline  
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to krazycanuck For This Useful Post:
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:56 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021