[Zarley]

After having a few days to digest the proposal, here are my thoughts:

The Concept: B+

I like the idea of combining the Flames arena and Stampeders stadium. There are synergies to be achieved by combining things like back of house operations, mechanical systems, restaurants, training facilities, retail, and other fan amenities. Co-locating these facilities makes sense from an economic perspective, and if we want to host a major event in the future it will be great to have a sports & entertainment district. Also, the proposed location can't be beat.

When I first heard that a field-house was going to be combined with the stadium, I thought it was a bad idea that would result in a sub par stadium experience. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Calgary is in desperate need of a new large stadium. There is absolutely no economic case to build a football stadium in Canada and there is no way that a CFL stadium will be constructed with private sector dollars. Combining a fieldhouse with this complex checks off a major want on the City's recreation wishlist and combining amateur and professional sports makes sense. Also, one of the major problems with locating a stadium in an urban areas is that the facility remains a monolithic dead zone for 355 days a year. The fieldhouse (along with the community hockey rink) will ensure that the centrepiece of this new West Village neighbourhood is active at all times, which should benefit retail amenities in the area.

The challenge with the fieldhouse/stadium is going to be ensuring that this stadium doesn't feel like an oversized Jack Simpson Gymnasium during Stampeders game day, while maintaining full utility of a fieldhouse. A second rate facility is not acceptable for Calgary when Winnipeg, Regina, and Vancouver have new (or renovated) state of the art facilities. The only additional thing I'd like to see is a retractable roof. It's not a must have, but I'd hate to lose football outdoors on a sunny afternoon.

The District Plan: C-

As many others have mentioned, this is where CalgaryNEXT really falls short. I realize that this is a very early concept and they likely didn't want to open the can of worms of realigning Bow Trail, but it doesn't make sense development wise to have 1,000' feet of riverfront occupied by this complex and a roadway. Additionally, their proposed layout severs the western portion of the West Village (residential) from supporting amenities in the commercial area at the east. It just doesn't work very well. Luckily, there are a number of ways to remedy this:

1) Keep the stadium complex in its proposed location but move EB Bow Trail adjacent to the CP tracks and shift everything southward. WB Bow remains adjacent to the north side of the complex but as a treed, signalized boulevard. This would allow for development parcels riverside, which would provide a much better link between the east and west portions of the district.

2) Same as 1, but WB Bow Trail would be buried below the complex during construction and a calm access road / pedestrian street would take its place, allowing for larger development parcels. This would be the best option, but costs become a huge concern.

3) Stadium/arena moved to the western portion of the site adjacent to the Pumphouse theatre. This is the most heavily contaminated area, so there may be some cost savings by locating the complex there rather than residential. The West Village under this scenario would become a more coherent district. The obvious drawback is a longer walk to transit and poor access from EB Bow.

Regardless, the plan needs a lot of work in this area.

Financing Plan: B

I know that plenty of people are whinging about this (billionaire owners and millionaire players!, rabble rabble, Spendshi etc.) and there is going to be a huge fight regardless of how reasonable the proposal is, but I was pleasantly surprised to see the Flames putting up as much coin as they are for this.

By putting up $450 million ($200M cash, $250M in ticket levy) the Flames are essentially taking care of the arena portion of the project with entirely private money. This a better deal than what Edmonton ended up with and more in line with the way that Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver financed their buildings.

As I stated above, there is no economic case for privately financed football stadium. We are in need of a new one and the only way this will be achieved is with a public contribution. Including a fieldhouse and community rink makes this far more palatable for public investment.

The CRL should be the main point of contention with this plan. A CRL is would likely be used to finance redevelopment of the West Village in any case. Can redevelopment of the area and construction of the complex be completed with a $240 million CRL? And will subsequent private development in the West Village be valuable enough to support payback of the initial loan? This depends on how well executed the development is.

Execution: C

The execution of the presentation thus far has left much to be desired. I realize that this is very conceptual in nature, but perhaps the plan shouldn't have been brought to the public at this stage? The renderings were weak, the district plan doesn't make sense, and the PowerPoint looks like it was thrown together in an afternoon. They've created many questions by not presenting a polished product.

Conversely, if they had developed a comprehensive plan and presented it, they risk public criticism for making backroom deals and not doing proper public engagement. It's really a lose-lose scenario.

I think it was a mistake not to breakdown the funding into different sources for the arena, and stadium/fieldhouse. Also, by calling it a ticket "tax" rather then a surcharge, they've confused people into thinking that this is a public contribution.

I'd hope that they bring in some private sector partners or consultants with experience in development. This project is very important for the city and will require some skill to get it off the ground.