[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by browna

For sure, my concern is with something where it's not just a simple additional charge, rather a fundamental disagreement on what amenities and features are needed for the Flames and hockey vs "events"/a public space, where each side has a different agenda ,and it’s a”one or the other” type decision as far as the design or amenities go.

Such as Flames needing an ice plant area which requires x amount of space, but that means the E Scooter holidng area thst the City wants has to be eliminated. Or a dressing room that the Flames want a certain size but the City thinks that a smaller size is adequate because then 3 additional dressing rooms can go in that space for other events such as public skating...and if the Flames build the big dressing room, there simply is nowhere for 3 smaller rooms to go, once construction started.

Or, the Flames want an extra 10 luxury boxes and the City thinks that design will prevents extra wheel chair spaces, or having those extra boxes restricts some other usability factor that would be more practical and better utilized in the cities eyes (ie additional washrooms) for events that don't need the extra luxury boxes. Further, where the Flames think the extra luxury boxes should he a shared cost, and the City, because it doesn't believe they are required for whatever reason, doesn't want to share in the cost, let alone agree with their inclusion.

Etc. Those would be the battles that they can't afford to have once shovels hit the ground. And you wouldn’t think they would, though ther may be some contentious issues when arguing in the design process...but if cost start to over run and the both sides have to agree on what to cut, that would be worse and that certainly can’t happen.

The great thing is the architectural design process, direction and consultations with both parties isn’t going to proceed as anything resembling that.