CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by nik-

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

Notwithstanding his statements to that effect, I would bet money there is definitely a backup plan... it's just one we haven't been told about yet.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Zarley

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.

Even Bell Centre is a couple hundred meters (not to mention 4-5 storeys),although the walkway is indoors.

I prefer Bunk's idea of placing it closer to the centre of the site, it gives multiple access points rather than bottlenecking. Just ensure the walkways are built for 4 seasons.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Notwithstanding his statements to that effect, I would bet money there is definitely a backup plan... it's just one we haven't been told about yet.

I also think that there's a Plan B.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Zarley

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.

You would have to redesign the Sunalta train stop, and I would think that cost would fall on the flames as the city would have no appetite for that.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Notwithstanding his statements to that effect, I would bet money there is definitely a backup plan... it's just one we haven't been told about yet.

When we see it, we will be very excited about a world class and transformative Plan B that most other cities in the world would be lining up to support. It's been in the works for years, I bet.

[The Yen Man]

One of the things that really bugged me about King's presentation was the whole "no Plan B" was most definitely a lie, but one told by King so that the public would feel like they have no choice but to get behind the project. There is no way sound business people go into something like this without alternate plans and scenarios.

[BigBCalgary]

Originally Posted by Bunk

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.

Thanks for clarifying Bunk.
In that case that just solidifies my preference for the west side. A combination sports and entertainment district is very appealing to me, and the west side location is still preferred.
I can appreciate the idealistic nature of the youth campus, but I'm not sure thats the right place to put it. Not sure what the best thing to do there.
I am sure The Flames group is mostly concerned with the best interests of their teams and if they can create the best situation for them they will, naturally. Not having to be so spread out and deal with fewer entities is to thier advantage, as the creosote clean up and development of the west side is to every Calgarians advantage. IMO still win win.

[Frequitude]

I wouldn't plan on building something else on top of the youth campus. That's a key project for the Stampede and really is a facility we should be proud to have in this city. Love Bunk's mockup though. It just makes so much sense.

If possible, I would love to see an adjoining football stadium north of the arena butting up against the tracks. Though that might isolate the north eastern residential block a bit much?

[NiklasSundblad]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

One of the things that really bugged me about King's presentation was the whole "no Plan B" was most definitely a lie, but one told by King so that the public would feel like they have no choice but to get behind the project. There is no way sound business people go into something like this without alternate plans and scenarios.

You have hit on a major truth here, but possibly not the one you intended to.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree that the proposal, as is, is merely a step towards something else. What that is, I don't know. But these are smart guys who have had a lot of time and resources to throw at this. And no one forced it - they brought this to the public.

It feels to me like it is simply one battle in a bigger fight. Where it goes from here, or how it evolves, I don't know. But it feels very much to me like it is just the 'first shoe'.

It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by FNL

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

Sorry, they won the bid on Dec. 21, 2015 to buy the property. If there were no takers, I would assume it would be gone.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by nik-

I also think that there's a Plan B.

I don't think there is one, but I think there will be, probably by April.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by 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 )

Not a fan of the design: Without having any plans its tough to judge a design but I do not like the idea of having a combined hockey and football field.

I do not like the funding model: We can call the TIF what we want, but it is city money. It has been discussed at length here so I don't need to re-hash it. While the 200 million for the "field house" is, again, un-funded. A field house in such a prime location is most likely not intended when originally discussed.

Location: I can see why they like the location, but there are so many issues with it, and as bunk noted, there are viable alternatives. The structure is too big to stick in the middle of a dense development, there are issues with soil contamination, the highway isolates the areas (the proposal does not offer changes to the existing highway structure), I think the location will create a dead zone in the middle of a potential development and could impact the viability of amenities along the river.

There are solutions to these issues: removing the field house, changing the road network, and putting the arena on the western edge of the WV development. But I still think that the Stampede lands are the best spot for the arena and the land is prime for that type of development and could help the Stampede Board's vision of creating its own district around there.

If I am the City, I would see the Stampede as the lesser of all evils and would push hard for that location. You want to build in West Village, pay up! buy the land, build the arena. I won't stop you from doing it, but I certainly wouldn't provide capital to the project in a location that is not ideal.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

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.

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.

I came here basically to post this. I hope that such a poor proposal is merely an attempt to create leverage and urgency among other stakeholders.

I have never heard any tangible evidence of Stampede vs Flames conflict (despite hearing people talk about it all the time). Much like people who always talk about the 'Stampede Board' doing this or that...in reality they aren't much different than any other corporate board providing governance/oversight (the differences lie in the unique operation that the Stampede is) - Stampede has a CEO and VP's (Full time jobs obviously) that deal with the nuts and bolts and actually develop major plans and policy decisions..of course this is with guidance from the Board, who also offers ongoing feedback and direction.

That said, it is definitely a bunch of rich old white dudes (and a few rich old white ladies) sitting in a room trying to plot the direction of the organization, but it is not a full time job for any of them.

The relationship between Stampede and Flames is certainly complex, and includes many conflicts as well as mutually beneficial outcomes. IMO both organizations are stronger together, and I think deep down both know it. A key difference is that Stampede is a not-for-profit organization - each Board member has something like a $5 share (purely symbolic) - aside from various personal business interests that are often related, they aren't making any more/less money based on the success of the organization (key benefits to being on the board being 'prestige', elite Calgary networking, and first class access to Stampede events). Murray & co.'s bottom lines are personally impacted by the decisions they make.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Cappy

If I am the City, I would see the Stampede as the lesser of all evils and would push hard for that location. You want to build in West Village, pay up! buy the land, build the arena. I won't stop you from doing it, but I certainly wouldn't provide capital to the project in a location that is not ideal.

Agreed with this. I'd even be fine with the gov't (including significant contribution provincially and federally - who actually had/have responsibility and oversight for environmental matters) dealing with the clean up and Bow/Crowchild adjustment projects (thereby increasing the value of the land). I either want a large capital purchase for the land + property tax (just as anyone else would do for their home or business) or very significant lease payments if the city retains land ownership.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Zarley

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.

I wonder who designed Sun alta station and who is designing the new arena....

[SebC]

Originally Posted by nik-

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?

West Village is a fine place for amateur sport. It's central, close to density, and transit-accessible. Notwithstanding the opportunity cost being higher, I'd say it's a better location than Foothills.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

I wonder who designed Sun alta station and who is designing the new arena....

Go on...

[#-3]

How about we have a poll series.

Do you like the Location? Yes/No/Indifferent
Do you like the Multi sport complex? Yes/No/Indifferent
Do you like the look of the building? Yes/No/Indifferent
Is the parking a big issue? Yes/No/Indifferent
Do you support the CRA? Yes/No/Indifferent
Do you support the ticket tax and proposed? Yes/No/Indifferent
Do you support government money for the field house? Yes/No/Indifferent
Do you support the $200M from the Flames? Yes/Indifferent/A Little bit more/Allot more
Will Transit access be adequate? Yes/No/Indifferent
If there is an Olympic bid would you support more public money? Yes/No/Indifferent
.....

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

i wonder who designed sun alta station and who is designing the new arena....

gec