[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Table 5]

Perhaps it's positioned just so, and can be incorporated into the plaza of the new building and become some sort of tree of fortune. It will be Calgary's lemon tree.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flamenfame

The Cannons left because other teams owners were pissed off at the extra travel up into Canada same thing happened to Edmonton Trappers 2 years later they were forced out of the PCL with a newer stadium good thing Calgary did not waste money on one, as far as new rink and football stadium no reason why this city can't find a way to do both , but they should be stand alones imo.

Come visit Calgary. Move your family to our young and exciting city. We can rival any north american city as we have a ..... um..... bridge!

Kidding aside a big issue with the Cannons is that we just don't get the spring weather for outdoor sports in April/May. Crowds were pretty good in the middle of summer but it's damn cold sitting on your butt for 2.5 hours on a 7 degree April or May evening. I recall so many games and series that were postponed due to snow and cold and you know the mostly american players hated being in the cold. I hate to say it but there's simply no way this city could ever have AAA again unless they had an indoor park.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Pliddy

We lost the Cannons because nobody wanted to spend money on a stadium, now there is people here who want to ride the Stampeders out of town because, having a football stadium is a waste of time and now we have the oldest arena in the NHL. Are we a world class city of over a million people or are we some dirt road frontier village, where you only stop for gas and stare at the inbred locals. Chew on this Calgary, both Edmonton and Winnipeg, the left and right armpit of North America, have facilities that blow ours out of the water. Thank God we have the U of C or we would be in same category as Toledo, or even Hamilton...oh that's right even Hamilton has a new stadium

I really think we need a moratorium on the use of the phrase "world class city". Calgary will never be a world class city, not when for tourists it's primarily a gateway to Banff and Canmore and the mountains. But it's a fun buzzword to try and convince people we have to spend money on a facility that will get used 9-12 times a year by a minor league (cause when you think world class, you think CFL....). Ironically Canada's only undisputed world class city is the worst CFL market, no one cares and even at BMO Field they still won't care that much. Argos are behind the Leafs, Raps, Jays and TFC in the Toronto pecking order (probably the Marlies too). If the Argos left or folded, Toronto would still be a world class city. Yet Calgary needs a new CFL stadium to be considered in the "world class city" argument. Gotcha.

HotHotHeat really nailed it, but investing in the CFL is a poor investment. The younger generation prefers the NFL by a significant margin. 10-15 years from now the CFL could be irrelevant as a live sport, especially since live football is right there with baseball as the worst sport to watch live. Even the NFL has had to relax the blackout rules because live football isn't worth it compared to watching at home.

And don't worry we're getting the arena, so soon enough you'll have the chance to pay 40% more for tickets and 60% more for beer and concessions to (maybe, if designed right) spend 3 fewer minutes in line, all for the exact same live in-game experience. Cause you know that's really what being a "world class city" is all about, paying way more for like a 3% improvement in the experience.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I really think we need a moratorium on the use of the phrase "world class city". Calgary will never be a world class city, not when for tourists it's primarily a gateway to Banff and Canmore and the mountains.

Depends on your definition. I've always like this chart which is updated every couple years:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2016t.html

No, Calgary isn't an Alpha city (it'll never be New York, London, Sydney, etc) but it is a Beta city, similar in importance and "world relevance" to Seattle, Denver, Manchester, Edinburgh, etc. A small step below Berlin or Philly, but a small step above Glasgow or St Petersburg. In addition, Calgary consistently ranks very high in the quality of life it provides.

So, it's not the top of it's class, but Calgary is a pretty important and successful city in its own right, and ranks very well among other cities in the world. Part of getting there and staying there is our infrastructure and development. Having major entertainment venues and surrounding developed areas is just part of that, unfortunately.

I still don't want them spending money on a new arena, but I'm ok with money spent on redevelopment in areas that have a lot of potential (like the plan B area). So we'll see where the funding comes from and goes towards.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Depends on your definition. I've always like this chart which is updated every couple years:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2016t.html

No, Calgary isn't an Alpha city (it'll never be New York, London, Sydney, etc) but it is a Beta city, similar in importance and "world relevance" to Seattle, Denver, Manchester, Edinburgh, etc. A small step below Berlin or Philly, but a small step above Glasgow or St Petersburg. In addition, Calgary consistently ranks very high in the quality of life it provides.

So, it's not the top of it's class, but Calgary is a pretty important and successful city in its own right, and ranks very well among other cities in the world. Part of getting there and staying there is our infrastructure and development. Having major entertainment venues and surrounding developed areas is just part of that, unfortunately.

I still don't want them spending money on a new arena, but I'm ok with money spent on redevelopment in areas that have a lot of potential (like the plan B area). So we'll see where the funding comes from and goes towards.

Stop now please!
There is no place for a voice of reason in this discussion and, as such, posts like this will not be tolerated.
Ignored!

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Depends on your definition. I've always like this chart which is updated every couple years:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2016t.html

No, Calgary isn't an Alpha city (it'll never be New York, London, Sydney, etc) but it is a Beta city, similar in importance and "world relevance" to Seattle, Denver, Manchester, Edinburgh, etc. A small step below Berlin or Philly, but a small step above Glasgow or St Petersburg. In addition, Calgary consistently ranks very high in the quality of life it provides.

So, it's not the top of it's class, but Calgary is a pretty important and successful city in its own right, and ranks very well among other cities in the world. Part of getting there and staying there is our infrastructure and development. Having major entertainment venues and surrounding developed areas is just part of that, unfortunately.

I still don't want them spending money on a new arena, but I'm ok with money spent on redevelopment in areas that have a lot of potential (like the plan B area). So we'll see where the funding comes from and goes towards.

Fantastic link. Thanks for sharing. Calgary seems about right but Rio in the same category is a little odd.

A stadium where 25000 people could enjoy outdoor sports and concerts seems like a reasonable idea for a city of Calgarys stature.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

A stadium where 25000 people could enjoy outdoor sports and concerts seems like a reasonable idea for a city of Calgarys stature.

Is there honestly anything preventing the bolded currently? Is there a bylaw in place that concerts can't be held without approval? What's the process? Because every few years there's a concert held at McMahon.

If CFL football is allowed to be played their at least 10 times a year, then I don't understand why the community area would make such a stink about a concert. CFL games are just as loud since you can hear the music and PA announcer all the way in the northern area of the university.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Depends on your definition. I've always like this chart which is updated every couple years:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2016t.html

No, Calgary isn't an Alpha city (it'll never be New York, London, Sydney, etc) but it is a Beta city, similar in importance and "world relevance" to Seattle, Denver, Manchester, Edinburgh, etc. A small step below Berlin or Philly, but a small step above Glasgow or St Petersburg. In addition, Calgary consistently ranks very high in the quality of life it provides.

So, it's not the top of it's class, but Calgary is a pretty important and successful city in its own right, and ranks very well among other cities in the world. Part of getting there and staying there is our infrastructure and development. Having major entertainment venues and surrounding developed areas is just part of that, unfortunately.

I still don't want them spending money on a new arena, but I'm ok with money spent on redevelopment in areas that have a lot of potential (like the plan B area). So we'll see where the funding comes from and goes towards.

For the record, the basis for these rankings is pretty much financial services based. The merits of consideration are based on the following: Accountancy, advertising, banking/finance, and legal. So according to the list, Columbus, Detroit, Indianapolis and Kansas City rank ahead of Las Vegas (which doesn't even make the list at all). So ummmm, that would be the very definition of bull####. Nobody would ever consider those cities ahead of Las Vegas as far as being "world class"

World class implies elite, so the definition should be very narrow and not broad enough that every city could claim they are close to world class. It basically should be "As a non-resident, would you actively plan a tourist based visit to this city, to which you will spend the majority of your time in?". As such, Calgary is once again primarily a gateway to the mountains than it is a stand alone city you'd wanna visit.

And Glasgow is a ####hole, everyone knows this, it's Scotland's Edmonton, simply no good. Edinburgh is waaaay better.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

There is a beautiful American Elm tree in the north parking lot, get ready for the hippies to chain themselves to it to save it.


American Elm & arriVa by Aaron, on Flickr

Give me the weekend. I think that tree is going to retire to Florida.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

For the record, the basis for these rankings is pretty much financial services based. The merits of consideration are based on the following: Accountancy, advertising, banking/finance, and legal. So according to the list, Columbus, Detroit, Indianapolis and Kansas City rank ahead of Las Vegas (which doesn't even make the list at all). So ummmm, that would be the very definition of bull####. Nobody would ever consider those cities ahead of Las Vegas as far as being "world class"

World class implies elite, so the definition should be very narrow and not broad enough that every city could claim they are close to world class. It basically should be "As a non-resident, would you actively plan a tourist based visit to this city, to which you will spend the majority of your time in?". As such, Calgary is once again primarily a gateway to the mountains than it is a stand alone city you'd wanna visit.

And Glasgow is a ####hole, everyone knows this, it's Scotland's Edmonton, simply no good. Edinburgh is waaaay better.

You don't entirely understand the chart. It factors in more than what you've listed in building it's list, but ranks it's list based on each city's importance and connectedness to the world economy.

Your definition is just tourism based, which is sort of narrow minded and pointless when considering what the city should spend money on in terms of infrastructure and development. Tourism accounts for a very small margin of a city's quality or class. People love going to Anaheim because Disneyland is there, that doesn't make Anaheim significant. Nor does the Strip make Vegas a world class city. You are thinking strictly in terms of tourism which isn't that applicable in this situation. This entertainment venue is primarily purposed to serve the citizens of Calgary. It is not a tourist attraction. I don't go to LA to see the Staples Center.

The point was: the argument over "world class" is a pointless one, because most people have variable definitions on what that means and why it matters. What IS true is that Calgary is a significant and important city on the world stage. By any measure it ranks among the top 5% of all cities in the world, and often much better than that. Call that world class, or call it whatever you want.

[1991 Canadian]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And don't worry we're getting the arena, so soon enough you'll have the chance to pay 40% more for tickets and 60% more for beer and concessions to (maybe, if designed right) spend 3 fewer minutes in line, all for the exact same live in-game experience. Cause you know that's really what being a "world class city" is all about, paying way more for like a 3% improvement in the experience.

This about sums it up for me. I would rather pay $40/game for the current Saddledome experience than $70/game for a slightly improved Rogers Sportsplex* experience. The extra costs involved as a customer and potentially as a taxpayer just aren't worth it in my opinion.

Even if the Flames build it with mostly private funding, ticket prices will inevitably go up. As a partial season ticket holder, I don't see the value of this.

If anything, I'd argue that newer arenas make for a worse in game experience as they price out the more vocal fans. That is already happening to the Saddledome and it will only get worse with a new arena.

I went to a game in Edmonton this year. I paid $50 instead of $15 back at Rexall (some of this is due to the team being better). The walkup and concourse are considerably nicer and more spacious than before. The crowd is considerably quieter in the new barn. The beer was more expensive. There were lineups for the washrooms and concessions, albeit shorter than I'm used to.

I didn't feel like i got an extra $35 of value out of my experience. For me, that is all it comes down to. I only have so much discretionary spending for entertainment. It's a sad reality that I'll likely be priced out of season tickets when a new arena comes in, regardless of who pays for it.

*Name TBD

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You don't entirely understand the chart. It factors in more than what you've listed in building it's list, but ranks it's list based on each city's importance and connectedness to the world economy.

Your definition is just tourism based, which is sort of narrow minded and pointless when considering what the city should spend money on in terms of infrastructure and development. Tourism accounts for a very small margin of a city's quality or class. People love going to Anaheim because Disneyland is there, that doesn't make Anaheim significant. Nor does the Strip make Vegas a world class city. You are thinking strictly in terms of tourism which isn't that applicable in this situation. This entertainment venue is primarily purposed to serve the citizens of Calgary. It is not a tourist attraction. I don't go to LA to see the Staples Center.

The point was: the argument over "world class" is a pointless one, because most people have variable definitions on what that means and why it matters. What IS true is that Calgary is a significant and important city on the world stage. By any measure it ranks among the top 5% of all cities in the world, and often much better than that. Call that world class, or call it whatever you want.

No I understand the chart just fine. The only factors that truly matter relate to financial services. As I said there is no measure in the world where people would legitimately consider Columbus, Ohio and Indianapolis, Indiana as more "world class" than Las Vegas unless it relates to financial services, of which those two cities have significantly more than Las Vegas. As far as culture goes, Columbus has Ohio State and.....ummmm.....Nationwide Arena? Cool I guess. Las Vegas obviously has significant cultural offerings, far more than most American cities. The Anaheim example is an extremely poor example because Anaheim is part of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Nobody is going to Anaheim, they are going to SoCal which includes Los Angeles. Within an hour of Anaheim is 20 million people and hundreds of things to do. It's like the Bay Area, you might fly to San Jose, but you are almost certainly heading up to San Francisco and maybe Sonoma (naturally skipping Oakland).

The bolded is interesting, because unless the new facilities significantly increase the number of events Calgary will host, they essentially are just replacements to existing facilities that, as mentioned, will simply be more expensive to attend for effectively the exact same experience. So as I said, is that the qualifier for world class status? Paying more for the same basic experience? I know some have convinced themselves all Calgary needs to do for more events is have new facilities, but those people are in for a very rude awakening when it doesn't happen.

We all know the "world class" argument is pointless, but we also know Calgary is not a world class city unless the measurement is purely economic. Which is fine, because it allows us to earn good enough livings to travel to world and enjoy the true world class cities. That people feel we need more concerts to get into the "world class" discussion kinda says it all about how people really feel about Calgary culturally doesn't it? Concerts pretty much have dick all to do with world class status. That Louisville and Edmonton can host Taylor Swift concerts and not Calgary does not make them more world class.

[PepsiFree]

Again, tourism is great. But if that's your measure then that's just narrow minded and wrong. Cities succeed and fail based on their residents, not the family of 4 who gets a hotel there to stay in Disneyland or go see a tower.

You might think Las Vegas is a world class city, but if you can name one thing outside of the tourist attraction that is the strip that makes it that way then I'll be shocked. New York isn't world class because of Times Square. London isn't world class because of the eye or a bridge.

Calgary ranks top ten for liveability and it an important economic city. You seem to be confusing class and quality with "ohhhh, shiny!"

Maybe you'd prefer we spend money on a better tower, or upgrade our theme park or something. Maybe then we'll finally be as world class as you think Vegas is.

[PeteMoss]

No matter where Calgary comes on that list, for approximately 98% of the list I have no idea if they have arenas or stadiums so not really sure if having a new one matters or not.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

No matter where Calgary comes on that list, for approximately 98% of the list I have no idea if they have arenas or stadiums so not really sure if having a new one matters or not.

Spoiler: it doesn't specifically

But having modern infrastructure and entertainment venues does. No where does it say that needs to be an arena or an NHL/NFL/MLB/NBA team.

The reason the world class argument doesn't really matter is that a new arena has zero impact on it. Having a major entertainment venue does, but we already have that, it's just kind of old.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Again, tourism is great. But if that's your measure then that's just narrow minded and wrong. Cities succeed and fail based on their residents, not the family of 4 who gets a hotel there to stay in Disneyland or go see a tower.

You might think Las Vegas is a world class city, but if you can name one thing outside of the tourist attraction that is the strip that makes it that way then I'll be shocked. New York isn't world class because of Times Square. London isn't world class because of the eye or a bridge.

Calgary ranks top ten for liveability and it an important economic city. You seem to be confusing class and quality with "ohhhh, shiny!"

Maybe you'd prefer we spend money on a better tower, or upgrade our theme park or something. Maybe then we'll finally be as world class as you think Vegas is.

I don't think Las Vegas is a world class city. Just that it is a lot more world class than many of the cities on the list. World class is the elite of the elite, it should basically be the top 25 cities in the world. In North America there's five for sure qualifiers (NY, LA, SF, Chicago, Toronto) and another 4-5 worthy of being considered (Miami, Boston, Atlanta, Houston (or Dallas), San Diego, Vancouver). If you're going to use things like the Mercer rankings, that means Calgary is more world class than London, New York, San Francisco, Tokyo...obviously it would be utterly insane to suggest Calgary is more world class than those cities. Calgary is not even the most world class city within 600 miles of it.

And for the record, while you may view tourism as irrelevant, London's tourism industry is almost $30 billion CDN, which is more than half of Calgary's entire economic output. Tourism is a lot more important than you're giving it credit for. Curiously most of the cities considered world class have much better infrastructure than Calgary (transit in most cases significantly so). When you host a lot of visitors, you wanna leave a good impression. Can't do that being a slouch on infrastructure. Isn't that a big reason why people wanna host the Olympics? So we can get more infrastructure? That sounds a lot like spending based on tourism doesn't it?

[EldrickOnIce]

How did Las Vegas get brought into this?
Vegas, outside a few blocks along the strip, is a complete ####hole.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

How did Las Vegas get brought into this?
Vegas, outside a few blocks along the strip, is a complete ####hole.

Because according to the list of Alpha/Beta/Gamma cities, Detroit is more "world class" than Las Vegas. And your bolded argument also applies to New York, London, and LA (and most other cities). Outside of the downtowns of London and LA, and once off Manhattan, most of those cities are holes too.

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Again, tourism is great. But if that's your measure then that's just narrow minded and wrong. Cities succeed and fail based on their residents, not the family of 4 who gets a hotel there to stay in Disneyland or go see a tower.

You might think Las Vegas is a world class city, but if you can name one thing outside of the tourist attraction that is the strip that makes it that way then I'll be shocked. New York isn't world class because of Times Square. London isn't world class because of the eye or a bridge.

Calgary ranks top ten for liveability and it an important economic city. You seem to be confusing class and quality with "ohhhh, shiny!"

Maybe you'd prefer we spend money on a better tower, or upgrade our theme park or something. Maybe then we'll finally be as world class as you think Vegas is.

I really disagree with this, tourism is a huge industry. I didn't know the numbers but you peaked my interest into looking into New York City's tourism: http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/t...ic_impact.html

~359,000 jobs are a direct result of tourism in NYC, that's huge. And Calgary already has a tourism advantage with the mountains and Banff, Stampede. Adding some 'world class' venues to the city could potentially lead to a few nights staying in Calgary to see the sites, before or after a trip to the Mountains. Which includes, using taxis, going out for meals, buying merchandise, etc...

You're right that the residents make or break a city, but the impact of tourism shouldn't be ignored. Plus, our main economy isn't going to sustain growth forever.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

Sorry guys - this is Plan B! NO stadium, only renos. Any die hard Stamps fans are going to be extremely disappointed. In fact, who know if they're even going to address that on Monday.

I'm a diehard Stamps fan and season ticket holder and I'm ecstatic that CalgaryNEXT is dead. The McMahon in-seat experience is awesome. I'd probably give up my seats if they moved indoors.

Extend the concourses into the parking lot and west hill a bit, enclose them, do some renos, and call it a day. Don't even care if they don't though.