Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future...

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by valo403

The same could be said for the roads you use to get to your house.

Absolutely.

We all pay for stuff we don't use. The $25 million Peace Bridge, $75 million interchanges, community arenas, art galleries, museums.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Except that it is inadequate. The major tenant/concession operator as well as the building's owner has said so. A number of times. You say that it's fine because a bunch of programs in Podunk towns in different leagues across NA make due with similar facilitates and brush off the fact that the direct comparable facilities are all/will be superior. Major renovations at Molson Stadium, BC Place and Commonwealth. New Stadiums in Winnipeg, Hamilton and Regina. Essentially a new stadium in Ottawa as well.

The CFL has said Moncton requires $100 million renovation if they want to have a team. That's the same number King has stated in terms of dollars required to get McMahon renovated AFTER spending $15 million to address the most basic of immediate needs.

It doesn't function fine. I guess it does if your requirement for the venue is only that a football game can be played. I myself would like the opportunity to be able to both consume concession items as well as void them from my body rather than choosing just one during halftime.

No one from the Flames has stated they are seeking public funding for either a new building or major renos.

Yes, those podunk towns and stadiums that host teams worth multiple times the Stampeders, or even the Flames for that matter. And of course tenants never exaggerate their need for a new stadium, that's completely unheard of

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Muta

Personally, I'm interested in living in a city that puts beautification of space and investment into outstanding and useful infrastructure as a high priority.

Not interested in just attaining the bare minimum to be happy, like alot of people in Calgary seem to be content with. Last thing I want is a world-class city like Calgary to be a glorified Regina.

If anyone has ever been to or lived in a city where infrastructure is one of the higher priorities... you'd know what I'm talking about. New York, San Francisco, Singapore and Melbourne aren't what they are by cutting corners and saying 'no' to everything.

I personally hate McMahon Stadium, turns me off from going to Stamps games. I want a world-class facility that will include football, MLS, and allows us to pursue other international events that bypass us because our stadium isn't up to par.

I've been to many of the world "great cities" including a few that you mentioned - never have I been told to go and visit the local sporting stadium. Never has a guidebook advised me the local soccer pitch is simply "can't miss" or the local ball diamond is something I need to see before leaving town. Cities aren't great or medicore based on the quality of sports facilities - fact remains the sports facilities are for the locals - nobody else cares where you home team plays its games.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

Personally, I'm interested in living in a city that puts beautification of space and investment into outstanding and useful infrastructure as a high priority.

Not interested in just attaining the bare minimum to be happy, like alot of people in Calgary seem to be content with. Last thing I want is a world-class city like Calgary to be a glorified Regina.

If anyone has ever been to or lived in a city where infrastructure is one of the higher priorities... you'd know what I'm talking about. New York, San Francisco, Singapore and Melbourne aren't what they are by cutting corners and saying 'no' to everything.

I personally hate McMahon Stadium, turns me off from going to Stamps games. I want a world-class facility that will include football, MLS, and allows us to pursue other international events that bypass us because our stadium isn't up to par.

Interesting that you cite a city that wasn't interested in paying to build a football stadium.

[Robbob]

I think it can be a good investment for the government or city if a new venue allows for an attraction that would normally bypass the city. We know concerts go to Edmonton instead of Calgary because of the venue. My question would be how many events would need to be held to make it a benefit to invest. For the city itself one additional concert would put more money towards lodging, restaurants, c-train ridership etc.

I think everything needs to be taken into account as an overall economic impact rather then just the sport team playing there. It is apples and oranges but the San Diego Comic con estimated regional economic impact was around 168 million back in 2010 and estimated 180 million for 2011.

If it can be proven that the new venues can attract bands/sporting events that would not come to the current venues then I think it is reasonable investment for taxpayer money.

[Tyler]

Just a point about those "dastardly billionaires".

Doc's estate JUST left $119M to the Calgary Foundation. Harley was a huge philanthropist and I'm sure Murray Edwards has put millions of dollars into Calgary.

We're not talking about Mr. Burns here.

These guys love this city and while public money may help get enormous infrastructure projects built to support teams they own, they are certainly model Calgarians with a huge focus on civic duty.

Again, I don't think any single owner has gone out in public and stated they're looking for a dime to date. Am I wrong?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Yes, and in third world countries the government could care less about their people nor their access to vital infrastructure. You are aware the Syrian government has been murdering its own citizens for the past year or so, right? Pretty easy to pay for a new stadium when you're not even providing your citizens with a basic standard of living and havent been for a long time.

Is that what you're hoping for here in Canada? The government starts to do away with our public infrastructure (and therefore our standard of living) so we can start building bigger and better sports stadiums on the public dime?

I am aware of what's happening in Syria, which is why I brought it up.

I know the government probably funded that stadium 100%, because nobody in that country could afford to foot the bill. Unlike here. Again, I'm not for 100% public funding, that would be irresponsible.

Let's look at neighbouring Lebanon though. Camille Chamoun Stadium in better is by far a nicer place than McMahon.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium..._chamoun.shtml
Isn't it slightly embarrassing if you had a guest from Lebanon and you wanted to show them how amazing democracy, freedom and capitalism are and you take them to a football stadium that's worse than what he has in his country?

All I'm saying is, we shouldn't set the bar so low as to have infrastructure that's just adequate.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Just a point about those "dastardly billionaires".

Doc's estate JUST left $119M to the Calgary Foundation. Harley was a huge philanthropist and I'm sure Murray Edwards has put millions of dollars into Calgary.

We're not talking about Mr. Burns here.

These guys love this city and while public money may help get enormous infrastructure projects built to support teams they own, they are certainly model Calgarians with a huge focus on civic duty.

Again, I don't think any single owner has gone out in public and stated they're looking for a dime to date. Am I wrong?

I don't think so, and if it stays that way I will be rather happy and very proud of the Flames owners for making this work without asking for handouts. I honestly can't see that happening though, especially if Edmonton gets public funding.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by valo403

Interesting that you cite a city that wasn't interested in paying to build a football stadium.

Well, in their defense, they were pretty tapped out after chipping in around a billion for the Yankees and Mets new stadiums.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I am aware of what's happening in Syria, which is why I brought it up.

I know the government probably funded that stadium 100%, because nobody in that country could afford to foot the bill. Unlike here. Again, I'm not for 100% public funding, that would be irresponsible.

Let's look at neighbouring Lebanon though. Camille Chamoun Stadium in better is by far a nicer place than McMahon.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium..._chamoun.shtml
Isn't it slightly embarrassing if you had a guest from Lebanon and you wanted to show them how amazing democracy, freedom and capitalism are and you take them to a football stadium that's worse than what he has in his country?

All I'm saying is, we shouldn't set the bar so low as to have infrastructure that's just adequate.

Uhh, nope. You are failing to understand every point being made counter to yours in this thread and it is getting a tad annoying.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I am aware of what's happening in Syria, which is why I brought it up.

I know the government probably funded that stadium 100%, because nobody in that country could afford to foot the bill. Unlike here. Again, I'm not for 100% public funding, that would be irresponsible.

Let's look at neighbouring Lebanon though. Camille Chamoun Stadium in better is by far a nicer place than McMahon.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium..._chamoun.shtml
Isn't it slightly embarrassing if you had a guest from Lebanon and you wanted to show them how amazing democracy, freedom and capitalism are and you take them to a football stadium that's worse than what he has in his country?

All I'm saying is, we shouldn't set the bar so low as to have infrastructure that's just adequate.

Nobody has said that's the case. McMahon needs some work, but as is it's on par with the vast majority of North American football stadiums, most of which also need to be updated. People seem to be severely detached from that reality.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

Interesting that you cite a city that wasn't interested in paying to build a football stadium.

Well, not every example in every city is perfect obviously... but you see my point.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I've been to many of the world "great cities" including a few that you mentioned - never have I been told to go and visit the local sporting stadium. Never has a guidebook advised me the local soccer pitch is simply "can't miss" or the local ball diamond is something I need to see before leaving town. Cities aren't great or medicore based on the quality of sports facilities - fact remains the sports facilities are for the locals - nobody else cares where you home team plays its games.

Of course no one is 'telling you' to go there... doesn't mean great infrastructure doesn't exist, and doesn't have to.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Isn't it slightly embarrassing if you had a guest from Lebanon and you wanted to show them how amazing democracy, freedom and capitalism are and you take them to a football stadium that's worse than what he has in his country?

I know whenever I host guests from war ravaged, oppressed, terrorized nations, the first thing I show them is our CFL stadiums as a true sign of our government, freedom and capitalism (which one would argue supports the 100% private financing position). Well, usually that's second behind women being able to go into the stadiums...

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Firstly, yes we would be funding billionaries, you're inability to understand that doesn't make it any less true. And please explain how replacing one stadium with another stadium is going to improve the "quality of life" of our citizens? Please give me a detailed explanation here as this is a real mistory to me. You are aware the vast majority of Calgarians would never set foot in a new rink or stadium, right? You do realize that, right?

No we wouldn't be funding billionaires. Read my posts.

Improving the quality of life of our citizens doesn't mean we have to improve the quality of life of every single one of the 1.3 Million that live here. You simply can't do that.

Don't 8th/7th ave improvements give our citizens a better quality of life? Does everyone use that area? No.

Does the river walk improve our quality of life? Does Fish Creek? Nosehill park?

How is a stadium district any different?

Originally Posted by valo403

Are you just trolling? I assume that's the case because you've shown complete ignorance to the subject and the willingness to outright lie in your arguments. Congrats.

I'm not. Thanks for coming out though.

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I've been to many of the world "great cities" including a few that you mentioned - never have I been told to go and visit the local sporting stadium. Never has a guidebook advised me the local soccer pitch is simply "can't miss" or the local ball diamond is something I need to see before leaving town. Cities aren't great or medicore based on the quality of sports facilities - fact remains the sports facilities are for the locals - nobody else cares where you home team plays its games.

Ever heard of Wembley Stadium in London? Alianz Arena in Munich? Rogers Centre in Toronto? Wrigley Field in Chicago?

I suggest you look them up.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Plett25

Well, in their defense, they were pretty tapped out after chipping in around a billion for the Yankees and Mets new stadiums.

Neither of which are examples of things that make NYC world class.

I can't think of a stadium that makes a city world class. Looking at the list of cities that Muta put forward there's only two that have a stadium that I could name off the top of my head (MCG in Melbourne & AT&T in San Francisco) located anywhere near the heart of the city. I have no idea what stadiums exist in Singapore, but I do know they have other great infrastructure.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

Well, not every example in every city is perfect obviously... but you see my point.

Yes and no, I see your point that infrastructure is important, but that doesn't mean it should take the form of publicly financed stadiums for private teams. There are many things that make those places you listed world class, none of them are stadium related.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I know whenever I host guests from war ravaged, oppressed, terrorized nations, the first thing I show them is our CFL stadiums as a true sign of our government, freedom and capitalism (which one would argue supports the 100% private financing position). Well, usually that's second behind women being able to go into the stadiums...

Of which Lebanon is none of those things.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Ever heard of Wembley Stadium in London? Alianz Arena in Munich? Rogers Centre in Toronto? Wrigley Field in Chicago?

I suggest you look them up.

So you're suggesting that absent those stadiums those places would not be world class? Was London not a world class city for much of the last decade? Wembley wasn't standing for that period.

[nik-]

This has become surreal.