Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Vail
The longer this drags out, the more benefit to taxpayers - at least in the short term.
When I go to the Saddledome, (it has been about 4 years), I do not see a decrepit building desperate for replacement. It seems like a very nice building. I am not convinced that it needs replacing. McMahon, on the other hand, is showing its age much more so, but that's another point altogether.
The Saddledome was built in 1983, but it has seen massive reno dollars to improve the facility over the years. I don't see why the rink needs replacing, and the longer it stands, the better.
One day a new arena will need to be built, and hopefully it will last more than 35 years. I'd think a minimum of 50 years should be the expectation of the huge amount of infrastructure dollars that it takes to build.
|
Replacing the Saddledome is a luxury at this point as the building is still very serviceable as you say. What does it say about modern construction, concept design etc if these mega-structures cannot hold up against time for more than 35 years? An adult in today's society should not be outliving the life span of 2 NHL buildings in the same city.
This is exactly the culture of fatcat entitlement our city needs to stand up against in these negotiations. Edmonton caved in a big way and Calgary is in hard place because of it but this doesn't mean our city can't take a stand.