Originally Posted by Thunderball
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.
|