CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[stamps]

Originally Posted by krazycanuck

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

Make it happen.

I agree , would be nice if this or something similar happened and the new arena was built on the Stampede grounds .... I just think the Flames ownership group is determined not to ... which is really too bad ....


MOD edit: You don't need to quote the entire post.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Nobama

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.

They can be torn down, it just doesn't happen often. I believe Turner field (Atlanta Braves) will be the first one in a long time to be torn down. If i remember correctly, the only other recent venues (i.e. opening or closing ceremony venues) to be torn down were London and that was because they were bombed.

Interesting enough, Turner field is only 22 years old! and is already downtown, but moving to Cobb County, over 20 miles from Downtown.

[rayne008]

Was trying to find an old post of mine when I came across this gem...

Old 07-17-2011, 08:54 AM #35
username
Powerplay Quarterback

I was at a sth meeting about a month ago where KK talked about the arena. Here's the jist of what he said:

- They are basically right where Edmonton is in terms of planning but don't publicize it.
- Have 3 sites selected that they need to choose from. 2 are urban, 1 a little more suburban.
- Will NOT be using tax payers dollars to pay for it. Sounds like a casino or something might be used.
- Will be a first class arena and they are going to take care of all the problems with the current saddledome.
- Targeting a completion in 3 - 5 years.

That's all I can remember at this point.

As been said many times in this thread, I can't see how any of the issues that precude the railtown / stampede area are anything close to the cluster###### of issues in trying to locate this thing in West Village.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by stamps

I agree , would be nice if this or something similar happened and the new arena was built on the Stampede grounds .... I just think the Flames ownership group is determined not to ... which is really too bad ....

Based on what?

Again, can someone provide any background on this alleged evil Stampede board meddling?

It just makes no sense. Why the hell wouldn't the Stampede want that draw down to their area 100+ nights a year and that kind of baseload to support further commercial development.

The only reason the current version of CalgaryNEXT is not on Stampede grounds is because it doesn't fit.

Originally Posted by krazycanuck

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.

Just to clarify, the land upon which the Stampede grounds sits is owned by the city. The Stampede did purchase most (all?) of it over time with their own money, but then they give most/all back of it to the city in return for a small lease (I believe $1/year). This lease is set to expire in 2060 and has a 50 year renewal term.

[Envitro]

It's not just the meddling. The past thinking was around full control of the building and the surrounding parking areas (i.e. increased revenues).

However, I think that has been blown out of the water with the lack of parking in the WV proposal.

[Frequitude]

The only time the Stampede requests full control of the building is during the 10 days of Stampede, which honestly makes sense. I don't see that as meddling.

As far as the rest of the year, the Stampede got out of managing the Saddledome way back in 1994. The Flames have managed the building ever since. About the only current influence the Stampede has on Saddledome operations outside of Stampede Week is in its capacity as 1 of 9 board members of the Saddledome foundation. I highly doubt the Stampede has proposed taking back control of managing any new building on its grounds.

[Kavvy]

If the Stampede board (whom I admittedly share no love for) was treating the Flames poorly as I seem to have read here, maybe, just maybe, this WV proposal will have them re-think their relationship with the Flames as they see their future expansion dreams die without them.

Who knows what happens behind closed doors and maybe there is no sour relationship.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by krazycanuck

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.

Plus then the city can push the WV remediation off for another 20 years!!

In all seriousness this is extremely convincing, good job.

[KevanGuy]

New thread and new poll.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

New thread and new poll.

Based on Bunks post, which is the first in this thread, it almost looks like the "current version of CalgaryNEXT" is Bunk's, which a lot more of us would support!

[BurningSteel]

Can we call it CalgaryAFTER??

[Enoch Root]

poll question is too simplistic - this is a big complicated issue, discussions will continue, and things will evolve

that poll guarantees a one-sided reply

[#-3]

I support the overall vision.

I'm OK with the location, although I don't think its the best.
I like the Multiplex/entertainment district aspect.
I love getting a new enclosed CFL stadium, and love the translucent roof.

I'm somewhat indifferent top the parking problems in the plan.

I find the access to transit a little bit concerning, as Bunk pointed out a north Victoria Park location could basically touch 2 of the lines, while this plan will only touch 1. But certainly not a deal breaker.

I'm not a big fan of the funding model proposed, and I'm disappointed our early in the development phase this project is.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

poll question is too simplistic - this is a big complicated issue, discussions will continue, and things will evolve

that poll guarantees a one-sided reply

I thought the last poll was way to complicated.

[cam_wmh]

Mods. Please open up the transparency into who voted into each of the available options just like the previous thread.

[Joborule]

Why?

[cam_wmh]

Whatcha hiding?

[fuffalo]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Why?

So that instead of discussing the topic we can simply insult each other about our opinions!

[FNL]

Originally Posted by Cappy

They can be torn down, it just doesn't happen often. I believe Turner field (Atlanta Braves) will be the first one in a long time to be torn down. If i remember correctly, the only other recent venues (i.e. opening or closing ceremony venues) to be torn down were London and that was because they were bombed.

Interesting enough, Turner field is only 22 years old! and is already downtown, but moving to Cobb County, over 20 miles from Downtown.

Turner Field isn't being torn down, it's being converted into a football stadium for Georgia State University.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

poll question is too simplistic - this is a big complicated issue, discussions will continue, and things will evolve

that poll guarantees a one-sided reply

We need a poll about the poll!!!