[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Cappy]

https://flamesnation.ca/2017/05/01/t...medium=twitter

A rebuttal to the Sun article.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

IMO this is a reasonable library facility
...

This is not.
...

Nothing says "vibrant, culturally relevant city" like soviet era architecture.

[Cambardi]

While I haven't voted one way or the other...I see a lot of people against the spending of public money for a new proposed facility. There is benefit for both the citizens of Calgary and the Flames. I'll say that the benefit is more so to the Flames. With all this said, Public Money was still spent on Arena to the north. I'm sure if NPR's "planet money" could trace the dollars spent on Rogers place - some will have come from Calgarians. There is a logical middle ground for where the monies will come from. Suffice to say that I think some should be invested by government and some (more) from the ownership group.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Rick Bell at some point I'm sure

$50 million twin bridges and a grand opulent cathedral of a public library, typical spending from Silly Hall.

...

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Cappy

https://flamesnation.ca/2017/05/01/t...medium=twitter

A rebuttal to the Sun article.

Wow I could of wrote this myself. Bravo. Sad the writer had to expend his time and thought to respond to such a trash piece by the SUN.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Wow I could of wrote this myself. Bravo. Sad the writer had to expend his time and thought to respond to such a trash piece by the SUN.

It's easier to light a fire than fight a fire.

Throw out a bunch of trash and then let others spend a tenfold amount of time rebutting you and just hope less people read the rebuttal.

[underGRADFlame]

My point with the library's was that people bitch and complain for fiscal restraint when it doesn't serve their personal beliefs or agenda. With the libraries one is an example of a facility that meets the needs adequately, and no it isn't pretty but it serves the purpose, the other is something that the citizens can feel proud about even though some people believe its a waste of money. It's no different than the peace bridge, a simple bridge would have accomplished the same thing the peace bridge does... to cross the river.

But yet when it comes to an arena people draw a line because it somehow doesn't count towards civic pride, or doesn't serve the "right" tax payers needs. There are a lot of tax payers that used the dome and would use the new arena, be it hockey, lacrosse or concerts, tax payers would benefit from a new arena in the same way a tax payer would benefit from a upgrade library.

I personally have no problem with spending taxpayers money on projects (other than the blue ring), I will likely never use or even step foot in the new library, and I have yet to walk across the peace bridge, but if they give people a sense of civic pride awesome. I support using some public funds for the arena, in my eyes, the debate needs to be over how much and where, not yes or no.

Oh and this picture brings me as much pride in calgary...

Spoiler!

as this...

Spoiler!

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The view from Airdrie.

Great reponse... thanks for your input.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cappy

https://flamesnation.ca/2017/05/01/t...medium=twitter

A rebuttal to the Sun article.

Boy, there's a part of me that wants to see the Flames move, just to spite obnoxious twerps like this.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

Boy, there's a part of me that wants to see the Flames move, just to spite obnoxious twerps like this.

It's just King calling in old industry favours.

Transparent, and sad, but par for the course.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by New Era

Boy, there's a part of me that wants to see the Flames move, just to spite obnoxious twerps like this.

Unlike the SUN this author cited multiple credible sources to back up his detailed narrative.

Look I will fully disclose something to you. In the days leading up to CalgaryNEXT announcement I got in a Facebook debate with Druh Farrell over the yet to be announced proposal. I called her out for posting anti arena articles and saying prematurely judging was wrong. The Flames were worth hearing out.

I still think that was the right move. However, since then I have embraced fact and will sit here and now say CalgaryNEXT was a dud. Not because of my lack of love of the Flames, not because I hate free markets, but because the facts state it is a raw deal.

Just because someone states a fact you don't want to hear doesn't make them obnoxious. Sometimes we are wrong, not the person saying something we don't like. Writing them off with name calling won't get many people over to your point of view, facts will.

So go ahead and rebut, I promise I am all ears.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

But yet when it comes to an arena people draw a line because it somehow doesn't count towards civic pride, or doesn't serve the "right" tax payers needs. There are a lot of tax payers that used the dome and would use the new arena, be it hockey, lacrosse or concerts, tax payers would benefit from a new arena in the same way a tax payer would benefit from a upgrade library.

Repeating myself again, but the very simple and obvious reason is the Flames are a private, for profit business and the facility will be restricted access to paying customers, whereas the other two are free to use for anyone. If the average taxpayer benefited, might be worth considering. But it's the wealthy fan that benefits since they can afford the price increases. So it's probably something better suited to PSL's, but people would be even angrier with that for whatever reason.

[GreenLantern2814]

This is a library in Vancouver. Anyone wanna guess how many people want it bulldozed in favor of something more grey and cementish?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

This is a library in Vancouver. Anyone wanna guess how many people want it bulldozed in favor of something more grey and cementish?

You're not fooling me, that's clearly the headquarters of the FBI's Fringe Division in Boston.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

IMO this is a reasonable library facility


This is not.

Actually the local library branch is somewhat akin to the local rink, while the central library is a little akin to the large professional arena.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

This franchise is a joke. Twice in my life (I'm 23) they've made it out of the first round. They've won nothing. Aside from 2006 they've never been near the top of the league, and even that year they were bounced in the first round. This city has supported this mediocre team for too long. .

1985-1986: Lost in Stanley Cup Final
1986-1987: Lost in Round 1
1987-1988: Lost in Round 2
1988-1989: Won Cup
1989-1990: Lost in Round 1
1990-1991: Lost in Round 1
1991-1992: Missed Playoffs
1992-1993: Lost in Round 1
1993-1994: Lost in Round 1
1994-1995: Lost in Round 1
1995-1996: Lost in Round 1
1996-1997: Missed
1997-1998: Missed
1998-1999: Missed
1999-2000: Missed
2000-2001: Missed
2001-2002: Missed
2002-2003: Missed
2003-2004: Lost in Stanley Cup Final
2004-2005: No Season – Lock Out
2005-2006: Lost in Round 1
2006-2007: Lost in Round 1
2007-2008: Lost in Round 1
2008-2009: Lost in Round 1
2009-2010: Missed
2010-2011: Missed
2011-2012: Missed
2012-2013: Missed
2013-2014: Missed
2014-2015: Lost in Round 2
2015-2016: Missed
2016-2017: Lost in Round 1

Pretty awful. If it wasn't for 1989 we would be as bad as the freakin' canucks.

[powderjunkie]

^Oh man, depressing to see it spelled out like that.

Since 1990, if we're looking at playoff series victories as the key metric of success:

Thrashers/Jets - 0/0 since '99
Columbus - 0/0 since '00
Arizona - 2 series wins (same year) (includes Winnipeg years)
Florida - 3 series wins (same year) since '93
Islanders - 3 series wins over 2 seasons
Minnesota - 4 series wins over 3 seasons since '00
Nashville - 4 series wins over 4 seasons since '98
Calgary - 4 series wins over 2 seasons

Blues and Leafs haven't made the finals, but have won around a dozen series each. If we back it up a year and include our cup as a trump card, we leap frog about 7 more teams like Buffalo, Washington, Philly, SJ, etc.


I don't really have a point relevant to this thread here - I was mostly just curious which other teams could be considered more futile than us. Two non expansion teams. SAD!

[GordonBlue]

I think the city should and will pony up. perhaps mostly in land and infrastructure support, along with some CRL funding.
that seems fair. I don't think there should be provincial or federal cash towards it.

for Canadians, the NHL is woven into the fabric of the community, and a city would lose some of it's identity without a team.
It sucks a little that a new arena would make is too expensive for some people to go to events, but life isn't always fair. there is a niche in the culture of the city where the flames fit and in their own way, it's as important as "higher class" cultural activities.

I don't like him, but Calgary is lucky to have Nenshi for this negotiation as he'll make sure that the city gives what they need to, and no more.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Great reponse... thanks for your input.

Sometimes ridiculous statements warrant ridicule.

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

My point with the library's was that people bitch and complain for fiscal restraint when it doesn't serve their personal beliefs or agenda. With the libraries one is an example of a facility that meets the needs adequately, and no it isn't pretty but it serves the purpose, the other is something that the citizens can feel proud about even though some people believe its a waste of money. It's no different than the peace bridge, a simple bridge would have accomplished the same thing the peace bridge does... to cross the river.

But yet when it comes to an arena people draw a line because it somehow doesn't count towards civic pride, or doesn't serve the "right" tax payers needs. There are a lot of tax payers that used the dome and would use the new arena, be it hockey, lacrosse or concerts, tax payers would benefit from a new arena in the same way a tax payer would benefit from a upgrade library.

I personally have no problem with spending taxpayers money on projects (other than the blue ring), I will likely never use or even step foot in the new library, and I have yet to walk across the peace bridge, but if they give people a sense of civic pride awesome. I support using some public funds for the arena, in my eyes, the debate needs to be over how much and where, not yes or no.

Oh and this picture brings me as much pride in calgary...

Spoiler!

as this...

Spoiler!

There are indeed lots of taxpayers that use the Saddledome, and plenty that will use the new facility. The problem is that it's a meaningless statement and a false equivalence with regard to libraries, transportation infrastructure, landfills, public parks, etc. It has about as much relevance as saying "there are lots of skiing enthusiasts that use the Saddledome" or "there are lots of wine drinkers that use the Saddledome."

In the context of the equivalence you're trying to draw, "use" means different things when talking about the Saddledome than it does when talking about a bridge or a landfill or a library. People attend events at the Saddledome (largely hockey/lacrosse games and concerts) by paying money to a for-profit enterprise who organizes and puts on the event to turn said profit, even after paying out the performers/entertainers/athletes handsome sums for their part. The quality of the interior of the venue and the prestige/brand/attraction of the exterior of the venue is usually proportional in some way to the profitability of the events. If CSEC continues to operate in the Saddledome, they will (and have) turn a profit. If they build a new facility, they will turn a larger profit, but have to weigh that against the cost of said new facility.

In contrast, the landfills, libraries and transportation infrastructure provide a public good. They are (often essential) services to the public that provide value but are generally not provided on a for-profit basis by the private sector due to various economic principles (very long term and non-monetarily-quantifiable returns, natural monopolies, etc.). These projects also provide an opportunity to add artistic, architectural and place-making value to the public on top of their primary institutional/utilitarian functions. Further, they are free to access for all or have a nominal user fee.

These are fundamentally different things and are not equivalent in the way you are trying to illustrate.

As for the Airdrie comments, it's very nice that you "personally have no problem with spending taxpayers money on projects (other than the blue ring)." Also, thanks for sharing that "I support using some public funds for the arena, in my eyes, the debate needs to be over how much and where, not yes or no.' Frankly though, this input should be swiftly deposited in the round file with other Airdronian input into City of Calgary affairs.

Most other posters who don't live in Calgary have stated such as a caveat before submitting their views on the public money for the arena, outright held their tongue on the matter or said that their views on that subject shouldn't count or hold weight.

[cam_wmh]

hahaha, wait.

undergrad lives in Airdrie? I almost, want to empathetically entertain his opinion, because of that.