Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
Perhaps if you were building with 100% private money.
Cost overruns will = drastic cuts. I don't see the City kicking even more money in, and I doubt CSEC would either as they don't own it.
|
Thats not necessarily the case, they're on the hook for 35 years of maintenance, it is conceivable that they'd put up extra money up front to reduce back-end costs, but thats a whole other story entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domoic
Perhaps a dumb question - but why does the Saddledome have to be demolished in all of this? And what will go up in its place?
Thanks
|
Theres a few reasons, primarily to eliminate possibility of competition particularly for events. Not every artist or act needs the Prime Venue which, presumably would take a bigger cut and say that the Ol' Dome is just fine. Remember, any revenue generated by the Saddledome would no longer go to CSEC as they would no longer be affiliated with it.
And secondly, while its an iconic piece of our skyline, that unique architectural design, while aesthetically pleasing, wasnt the best structurally.
So its got a difficult design and its getting old. I'm sure insurance underwriters have its demolition day circled on their calendars with the champagne chilling.
In short, nobody wants to be responsible for this building for all that much longer.
And finally, as a secondary venue its just too big. Even if you could keep it, how could we justify having two 19,000+ capacity venues within a stone's throw of each other? The cost to maintain, staff and operate without an anchor tenant just isnt feasible.