CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[codynw]

Originally Posted by fuffalo

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

Isn't that what the internet is for?

[shotinthebacklund]

I would like to see a poll for the people unhappy with the current CalgaryNEXT proposal exactly where your dislike lies.

design?
funding proposal?
Location?
All of the above?

as for the design of the stadium, as a few posts have suggested. We did not see the actual design of the complex. I would argue some of the animosity of this current project hinges on the little information released. There is way way more complete than unveiled, Hang tight (as hard as that can be )

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by Bunk

This right here is why I no longer support the CalgaryNEXT project as it is. The only change I would make is push the arena North further to be right next to the CP line. That way you could integrate the green line station into the arena itself and being that much closer to the City Hall station.

[Table 5]

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

How exactly does it support a one-side reply? All it's asking is if you support the current proposal, as it stands today.

When things evolve and discussions lead to meaningful changes, you can start a new poll and perhaps they'll get better support. But we can only vote on what we see today.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by fuffalo

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

You mean hide our opinions in an discussion forum?

Seems valid. What else are we to do? Cater to the frailties of the wrong?

[BigBCalgary]

So, the "youth campus" is the proposed site for the "field house" right? (I'm not sure why you would refer to it as anything else, but whatever.) In looking at this proposal I still prefer the original plan put forth by the Flames.
I'm wondering if they chose this plan as a possible way to get a large enough portion financed. As in, let us develop this area in order to help facilitate the cleanup of this large creosote mess, which has to be cleaned up at some point anyways...win-win.
I am sure that if they didn't have to deal with Remington or the Stampede board then the area around the Stampede grounds would be first choice. With the city owning the majority of the properties on the west side it simplifies negotiations and financing.

[Zarley]

It's tough to answer this poll, as I support the concept of a combined arena/stadium and think the West Village location is good, but the execution of the current proposal has been poor.

[Benched]

-City Land for the $$ savings, both tax exemption and leased/granted for free vs. purchasing
-Football stadium for free
-try to get as much public revenue as possible when support for big professional sport stadiums is at a low....ie spin it as a positive clean up/development

That's how I see the ownership group approaching this thing. From their side of things you can see why they chose the site they did and why they want to do what they suggested in CalgaryNEXT.


On the straight face of it though it makes no sense for the rest of us. There are better sites, with less cost, and better advantages elsewhere. Bunks' quick mock up makes more sense. But again, it probably doesn't meet the checklist for the business side of it from the Flames&Co.


Personally I'm a little bit hopeful that people aren't just foaming at the mouth to 'get it done now! now! now!' and are actually weighing some merits and alternatives.

I'm still eagerly awaiting the next step in this process, which I guess would be the 'remediation cost assessment' that the city is doing. Once that's in I guess we can have some more productive debate.

[Weitz]

I don't think the ownership group cares to build it in the most suitable location, they only care about building their building in a way that means they have to use the least amount of their own money to expand their revenue. Which is what they have presented.

Sure they could and should build it else where but they can't get a sweet heart deal anywhere else.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by BigBCalgary

So, the "youth campus" is the proposed site for the "field house" right? (I'm not sure why you would refer to it as anything else, but whatever.) In looking at this proposal I still prefer the original plan put forth by the Flames.
I'm wondering if they chose this plan as a possible way to get a large enough portion financed. As in, let us develop this area in order to help facilitate the cleanup of this large creosote mess, which has to be cleaned up at some point anyways...win-win.
I am sure that if they didn't have to deal with Remington or the Stampede board then the area around the Stampede grounds would be first choice. With the city owning the majority of the properties on the west side it simplifies negotiations and financing.

In this idea, the arena is stand-alone with the notion that McMahon would be renovated and the field-house would be built at foothills stand-alone as originally proposed.

The Youth Campus is a real project on Stampede Park.

As for putting an arena on Stampede Park (land owned by the City), I personally believe both the City and Stampede would want it there, I think the hesitation would be from the Flames themselves. But I think it's something that could be worked out.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Table 5

How exactly does it support a one-side reply? All it's asking is if you support the current proposal, as it stands today.

When things evolve and discussions lead to meaningful changes, you can start a new poll and perhaps they'll get better support. But we can only vote on what we see today.

In other words, you're looking for another chance to say 'no'.

The whole point of discussion is to actually have things evolve and progress. After several thousand posts in the first thread going around in circles, I am interested in new discussion.

But if you prefer repeating what you've probably said 25 times already, knock yourself out and enjoy the poll!

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I wouldn't call the WV superior for transit access. Least traveled train line with a small train stop..

I like the aspect of the train station being directly adjacent to the facility. With Bunk's plan you are still 400-500 metres from a station, which isn't a pleasant walk in winter and is tough on older fans. The great thing about arenas like the Bell Centre is the integration of transit access right into the building. You can do this with Sunalta station.

[Tinordi]

If the Flames were really serious about this proposal and if there really was "no Plan B" then they would have had something more serious to present. By presenting something so ill-defined and vague they've allowed other people to define it for them, which is Nenshi and others who've said this is a big waste of money that doesn't make any sense.

If the proposal had actually been in the hopper for 5+ years and they had showed detailed mock-ups of the site, the infrastructure needs, the community plan, the developers and other partners joining up and their assessment of the total costs (including clean up) then there would have been something serious for the City to bat back.

This leads me to believe it's all a smoke screen and that this has been a springboard to get the conversation started between the city and the Stampede board.

Nobody can seriously think that this billion-plus dollar project is going to be gestated from what's been proposed so far? The well's been mostly poisoned by the lack of clarity and seriousness of the proposal. If 70% of a freaking Flames fans board can't even get onboard how is public opinion shaping up?

No, I think this proposal was just a way to start the conversation on the "Plan B" (which is actually Plan A), that being the mix of key stakeholders (city, Stampede Board, land owners) that need to hammer their heads together to make a deal. I don't think the Flames found the appetite of these stakeholders to be that forthcoming in the five years previous so they threw something out there to publicly start some type of process.

Ownership also probably finally faced up to the fact that there would be no money coming from higher-levels of government which would have also kickstarted a process. Without that seed they needed something like "CalgaryNEXT" to bring people to the table. I'm confident that this "proposal"will be off the table by the end of 2016 with a more reasonable project being discussed privately.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In other words, you're looking for another chance to say 'no'.

The whole point of discussion is to actually have things evolve and progress. After several thousand posts in the first thread going around in circles, I am interested in new discussion.

But if you prefer repeating what you've probably said 25 times already, knock yourself out and enjoy the poll!

I am honestly confused with what your objection to the poll is. It measures the sites response to the proposal based on the knowledge we know now. We want to know how many people would vote to shut it down if it proceeds as planned.

Yes the "plan" has assumptions which differs from every voters mind, but, I think it is good enough to give a general idea of what the forum thinks of the proposal.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I'm confident that this "proposal"will be off the table by the end of 2016 with a more reasonable project being discussed privately.

we can hope.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In other words, you're looking for another chance to say 'no'.

I'm looking for a reason to say yes. I support the idea of a new stadium, just not the half-assed design we've been told to support, and then get violated financially to pay for it. I look forward to seeing something I can behind.

The whole point of discussion is to actually have things evolve and progress. After several thousand posts in the first thread going around in circles, I am interested in new discussion.

But if you prefer repeating what you've probably said 25 times already, knock yourself out and enjoy the poll!

Ha, as if you haven't repeated yourself equally as much. What kind of new discussion are you actually looking to have until there's further tangible development in the story? At least some of us have discussed and proposed other new locations that would be a better fit to Calgary and its citizens. What new evolution have you added to the conversation?

[Tinordi]

Thinking the poll is skewed is just another damning indictment of the proposal. The poll couldn't be any less skewed. Do you support this or not? No, what's happening is that people are facing up to just how ill-conceived this has all been.

Whining about a poll or pleading for people to give it a chance or to let a conversation unfold is just a desperate attempt to breath life into something that can't stand on its own merits.

I'm not the one asking for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. If you can't stand a basic level of scrutiny/skepticism then don't go to the well for public dollars. It also doesn't help that most of North America is finally waking up to just how bad an investment these stadiums are. If you want public money you better damn well show something better than a figurative racing stripe wrapped around a hope and prayer.

[nik-]

The more time passes from this the more I'm unsure of the Fieldhouse/Stamps stadium portion and I feel like trying to cram that all together is ruining this. While it would be great to have them all together, the site is just too tight imo. Additionally, if the fieldhouse is going to be also used as a place for amateur sports (which would happen a lot more than 9 Stamps games) is the West Village not a pretty poor place for it? Especially if the parking situation stays as it appears it will.

If the Flames are married to the idea of the West Village, maybe they should start thinking about just an arena. Obviously that breaks their whole financing model, and doesn't start the cleanup of the WV, which likely means we're back to an alternate site or staying on the Stampede Grounds. I just think that the Fieldhouse idea will suffer the most from this proposal.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In other words, you're looking for another chance to say 'no'.

The whole point of discussion is to actually have things evolve and progress. After several thousand posts in the first thread going around in circles, I am interested in new discussion.

But if you prefer repeating what you've probably said 25 times already, knock yourself out and enjoy the poll!

It has been months since the announcement - people's minds could have changed. The poll is intended to be a very simple to gauge overall support for the idea, in its current state.

[nik-]

I think considering the Flames have publicly stated there is no Plan B, this poll is quite reasonable and fair.