Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

PepsiFree · 10-26-2017, 11:33 AM

Is there anyone who believes a high-level entertainment venue doesn’t make a city better? If anything, for a city of our size it’d be an anomaly not to have one. It isn’t a requirement, persay, but it is a luxury that has become pretty standard for any major city.

Which is why I think it’s a pretty low bar to set. We can’t just build something because it makes the city better. It does. But it makes it better than not having one, and the saddledome still sufficiently fills that purpose. So with that in mind there has to be a higher bar. Replacing the saddledome has to fill a greater purpose and I believe part of that is putting it in an area where it can add to the revitalisation, not be the sole firestarter of it. I think the general concept of CalgaryNext is great, but it was poorly planned and put in an area that doesn’t fit with the city’s plans.

I’m accepting that public money is going to go to this new arena. Whether it be some now or more later (if/when the Flames are no longer a partner in building it) but if our two options are to save money initially while letting a private entity decide the where and when (especially if those two don’t fit with our plans) or spend more money on an arena that truly meets our needs both as an entertainment venue and fits our vision for the revitalisation of the city, then I lean towards the second one.

I’m even fine with CESC not paying property tax, but that should be measured as part of the city’s contribution, not just a freebie along with a couple hundreds of millions of taxpayer money on top.

I don’t really give a lot of credit to an argument that positions this as arena vs no arena. It’s the how and the when that are a concern. Based on some of the bigger architectural projects that are occurring right now and have occurred recently I put a lot of faith in the city to do it right and figure out something that looks great, fits the plan, and serves the population in the best way possible. I don’t trust the CESC to have the same things in mind.

I think a high-level arena is as close to a need as a luxury can get, but NHL hockey isn’t. Until the CESC understands the difference, I have to put my faith in the city and hope they remain firm in negotiations.

10-26-2017, 11:33 AM	#3749
PepsiFree Participant Join Date: Jul 2015 Exp:	Is there anyone who believes a high-level entertainment venue doesn’t make a city better? If anything, for a city of our size it’d be an anomaly not to have one. It isn’t a requirement, persay, but it is a luxury that has become pretty standard for any major city. Which is why I think it’s a pretty low bar to set. We can’t just build something because it makes the city better. It does. But it makes it better than not having one, and the saddledome still sufficiently fills that purpose. So with that in mind there has to be a higher bar. Replacing the saddledome has to fill a greater purpose and I believe part of that is putting it in an area where it can add to the revitalisation, not be the sole firestarter of it. I think the general concept of CalgaryNext is great, but it was poorly planned and put in an area that doesn’t fit with the city’s plans. I’m accepting that public money is going to go to this new arena. Whether it be some now or more later (if/when the Flames are no longer a partner in building it) but if our two options are to save money initially while letting a private entity decide the where and when (especially if those two don’t fit with our plans) or spend more money on an arena that truly meets our needs both as an entertainment venue and fits our vision for the revitalisation of the city, then I lean towards the second one. I’m even fine with CESC not paying property tax, but that should be measured as part of the city’s contribution, not just a freebie along with a couple hundreds of millions of taxpayer money on top. I don’t really give a lot of credit to an argument that positions this as arena vs no arena. It’s the how and the when that are a concern. Based on some of the bigger architectural projects that are occurring right now and have occurred recently I put a lot of faith in the city to do it right and figure out something that looks great, fits the plan, and serves the population in the best way possible. I don’t trust the CESC to have the same things in mind. I think a high-level arena is as close to a need as a luxury can get, but NHL hockey isn’t. Until the CESC understands the difference, I have to put my faith in the city and hope they remain firm in negotiations.