Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
First of all, the comparison to a library is laughable. If you can't grasp the different impacts that a library and a stadium used for professional sports 15 times a year have on a city I'm not sure there's any point having a conversation with you. It's such an absurd strawman argument, and you know it.
The hi-lighted paragraph demonstrates why you think this would be a good idea, because you live in a fantasy land.
First, $200mil for a 40,000 seat domed stadium? Are you expecting to use volunteer labor in the construction or something? That figure is completely out to lunch. LiveStrong Park in KC cost $200mil and seat under 20,000 and is open air. The covered stadium proposed in Regina would cost $400mil, so unless you've got an explanation for that $200mil figure I'd say you're intentionally skewing the picture to suit your argument.
Second, you continue to base this around the addition of a fantasy MLS team when there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Calgary is a desirable market for the MLS. It seems as if you're drawing on a field of dreams style 'if you build it they will come' idea, unfortunately this isn't a movie and there aren't going to be any ghosts strolling out of corn fields. Even if the goal is to attract an MLS team, a $400mil+ 40,000 seat domed stadium is massive overkill.
Third, 6 concerts a year? Again, I'm not sure where you're coming up with these numbers but they seem to be created as a means to make your argument look stronger than it is. There have been a grand total of 6 concerts at Commonwealth since 2007. Unless U2, Bon Jovi, Kenny Chesney, and the handful of other acts that do stadium tours are all planning to tour every year, and include a city that is already off a lot of bands touring plans due to its location, that number is a complete fantasy. You would be lucky to add one additional concert to the city each year.
As for it making CFL games more marketable (I'm not even going to address the idea that this would make CIS football marketable, it's a small time sport with a fanbase consisting predominantly of friends and family) that's all well and good, but why exactly are taxpayer dollars being used to make a professional sports team more marketable? In a situation where a new building is an absolute must, such as with the Flames, I don't have an issue with some taxpayer funding, but that's not the case here.
Now let's get to the "these facilities are good for cities" argument. I don't disagree, but how exactly would this new facility make the lives of Calgarians better? McMahon already offers plenty of recreational use, does this facility somehow expand that? I suppose putting in a dome would do that, but if the payoff is recreational use you could achieve that same result at a minuscule fraction of the cost.
I honestly question whether or not you've ever been to another football stadium in North America. I've been to dozens, and the only ones that aren't pretty similar to McMahon are NFL stadiums. The CFL is not the NFL. The revenue streams aren't there, the demand isn't there, the need isn't there. Again, look at the stadiums utilized by some of the most profitable NCAA football programs in the country. They are strikingly similar to McMahon, with the only real differences being the size and the enhanced high end/press areas.
The bottom line is that McMahon can't really take on more, but it doesn't need to, not for that price tag. A single concert? A pipe dream MLS team? Padded seats for the parents of Dinos players? All for the low, low price of $500mil.
|
First of all the Library and Music Centre are fine comparisons because reasonable facsimilies exist in the city already that are usable and acceptable at present, and like McMahon, will become less and less useful as time goes on. They would be substantial upgrades to get to with the times. There's obviously some philosophical differences, but the reality is all three projects are non-essentials that governments have discretion over. Calgary doesn't need a new central library because it has one already that isnt in danger of collapse... and it also has 16 other modern locations. Its already one of the best systems in North America. While Libraries are essential, they don't have to be massive, landmark Downtown locations. That's a luxury. (Obviously, Calgary should have a modern destination central library for those philosophical reasons and myriad others.) The argument is the merits of anything that isnt an essential.
Second, I never said it had to be domed. It would be nice of course in a perfect world, but I'm fully aware of limitations. I said it had to protect the fans from the elements. Partial roof to provide wind, rain and snow protection. You know, just like the 33,000 seat Investors Group Stadium in Winnipeg, that happens to cost, ohh... $190 million. So, that number wasnt pulled out from outer space like you seem to think. The $400m project in Regina supposedly has hotel and conference centre attachments to it... but the precedent is Winnipeg. A university/CFL stadium with similar capacity, modern amenities and shared funding between the university, city, province and CFL club. Anything else is irrelevant and were added merely to conflate the numbers.
Third, I see where your 1 or 2 concerts are coming from, but its a guess too based on a smaller city's history with a massive stadium that is never full. Again, a tactic to make your argument stronger than it is.
And don't say, McMahon doesn't see a lot more, so don't expect more, because we both know its because of by-laws and McMahon's general antiquity. We also both know, Calgary is a larger and more attractive tour stop than Edmonton and would beat 6 over 5 years. 6 a year might be pushing, then again with the Saddledome being inadequate, and the new Flames arena likely being booked often, there could be more than you think. 6/year might be high, but 1-2/year may easily be too low. Not to mention international events and tournaments that Calgary could actually bid for instead of looking like a one horse town sitting on the sidelines when major events like the U-20 World Cup and Women's World Cup 2015 come to town.
Either way, the potential for more is only half the argument. The other half is keeping what is there. The Stampeders are already crying foul and sending the public signals they want the City and Province to talk. Lyle Bauer pretty much said that. They see McMahon is a serious long term issue, why don't you? I also don't see how you can say the 30 year old Saddledome is a must to replace, but the 50 year old McMahon is not. (I think they both need to be replaced/massively upgraded, and I do agree that the Saddledome is one of the lousiest 10 arenas in the NHL, but McMahon is far worse). Its not like the city, province and federal governments are not going to see any money over the life cycle of these buildings back in their pocket. Its a lousy investment, but it provides more return than most government funded projects.
As for MLS, again, its a non-starter when the city lacks a venue that would even be acceptable on a temporary basis. Its the only major league left that's attainable to Calgary, so it's always going to be the brass ring. Calgary showed potential to be decent NASL market in 1980 with 10-11 thousand fans on average. With half the population of today. The Boomers are the only reasonable comparable, as everything since has been mickey mouse at best. The Boomers themselves were dubious because of their owner, Skalbania. The new stadium wouldn't be exclusively to attract MLS, despite my soccer bias. The new stadium would simply make that a viable option on top of being necessary for the long term health of the Stampeders, and to have a reasonable outdoor/psuedo-outdoor venue.
To answer your question, I've been to a dozen stadiums, including the two Michigan ones you mentioned (not much to do in Windsor...). I also know MSU dumped $75 million into Spartan Stadium, and that supposedly is phase 1. Yes, its mostly benches, and benches are brutal, but the internal components are better. If you think the only difference between McMahon and Spartan is the press area and capacity, you're absolutely crazy. The concessions, the bathrooms, the hallways, the audio, the video screens, the fact that its enclosed around to keep the wind down... its night and day. Even though both the Michigan ones are barns compared to Ford Field, they are still decades ahead of McMahon.
Anyway, Fundmark, you're right. For soccer in Calgary in the next ~10 years, a twinned Hellard would be just fine for NASL, maybe with partial cover and a couple upgrades here in there, which could easily be done for less than a Peace Bridge, and since it would have primary use to minor and amateur sport, it should be an easy cheque for the city and province to sign.
Still doesn't address the fact that Calgary lacks a modern facility seating 20k+, and is about to be left behind by fellow Canadian cities half the size.