[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flamette

No! If you can't get through a bathroom line in a 20 minute intermission, the functionality of the arena is beyond bandaid fixes.

Install new plush leather seats and decrease the max capacity to 16,000. If that still doesn't work build some "sun room" washrooms around the exterior of the dome

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rando

If our buildings are only lasting forty years we've got major issues.

Yes and no. Not all buildings are created or used equally.

The Saddledome would probably qualify as a 'Heavy-Use' building as opposed to something like an office building.

You've got to cool it, heat it, often both at the same time, staff it when its at capacity 40+ times per year, you have huge numbers of people going through it and all of this at the same time in a building that is at a disadvantage due to its unique shape and structure and its even survived a natural disaster.

All things considered its done extremely well over its lifetime, but I would hope that all plans for a future facility take that into consideration and hopefully have a building that can be maintained, repaired and renovated to last significantly longer.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Also, the net cost to the city, with this deal, is very close to zero (it will depend on revenues that will likely be better than the conservative projections used). A subsidy that is nothing, or close to nothing, for an event centre that improves the lives of all Calgarians, seems like money well spent to me.

This is just not a reasonable way to interpret the benefits of an arena. 130ish million in additional taxes in the rivers district is displaced from other areas of the city. You really need to exclude that from any assessment unless you really believe that the residential and commercial development occurring there is solely becuase of the Arena. I think you can make that case for the 19.1 million in street facing arena businesses but certainly not for the rivers district tax increases.

Edit: I should add to my post that the cost of the arena to the city of 160 million today using 3% cost of capital and excluding the 130ish in rivers district money and including land value seems reasonable in the current age of sports facility funding. We are getting a better deal than most and I don’t think there was much more to extract from the flames.

[Canadianman]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It’s 2019. We don’t need lengthy public engagement Woolley. The details are in every Calgarian’s pocket if they want to know them and they know how to reach you or let their thoughts be known.

Make a decision on behalf of the citizens you represent.

We’re not waiting for the monthly newspaper to land on our front step brought by horse and buggy.

Calgarians also don’t need to be given charts of NPV for each line item.

Yeah, how can it not be a good deal when delivered with the false bravado of a used car salesman.

THIS OFFER IS ONLY GOOD FOR 3 DAYS! HURRY HURRY HURRY! SIGN NOW! DON'T READ THE FINE PRINT!

#### this deal, #### #yyccc and #### the CSEC.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

Yeah, how can it not be a good deal when delivered with the false bravado of a used car salesman.

THIS OFFER IS ONLY GOOD FOR 3 DAYS! HURRY HURRY HURRY! SIGN NOW! DON'T READ THE FINE PRINT!

#### this deal, #### #yyccc and #### the CSEC.

Honest question (for anyone hoping for more time): What more information do you need? What specific information would sway your decision from “No, because I don’t have enough info.” to “Yes, because the extra information has persuaded me.”

What is up in the air for you, and why, specifically, does it matter?

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Honest question (for anyone hoping for more time): What more information do you need? What specific information would sway your decision from “No, because I don’t have enough info.” to “Yes, because the extra information has persuaded me.”

What is up in the air for you, and why, specifically, does it matter?

I'm in favor, but for people that aren't, I don't think it's a specific piece of key information that's missing; instead it seems like people are suspicious of the entire deal because of the very short time to review it. I think a lot of people assume that it's a tactic to sneak something by us before we can notice it.

[Toonage]

It feels like people just want to argue. Go figure.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Honest question (for anyone hoping for more time): What more information do you need? What specific information would sway your decision from “No, because I don’t have enough info.” to “Yes, because the extra information has persuaded me.”

What is up in the air for you, and why, specifically, does it matter?

I used to have this conversation with people when it came to the Olympic bid too. I'd ask why they voted "no", and most would say, "its too expensive!"

When I asked what "too much money" meant or "what should the appropriate cost be?", I'd receive nothing but silence.

I really don't care what position people take, but if your position isn't backed up with some sort of reasoning, I just cant partake in that sort of discussion.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Honest question (for anyone hoping for more time): What more information do you need? What specific information would sway your decision from “No, because I don’t have enough info.” to “Yes, because the extra information has persuaded me.”

What is up in the air for you, and why, specifically, does it matter?

I need the 1619 page document that outlines the specifics of the three way deal between the City of Calgary, CSEC, and the Stampede Foundation.

I will provide it to my team, and sub-consultants for review and then we will discuss it at our annual board meeting on October 1st like we do on all city projects.

This is important to me, because based on the infographic my $200 share as a citizen returns somewhere between $129 and $290 individually back to the city over 35 years. I need that amount personally clarified before we approve or deny.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

I'm in favor, but for people that aren't, I don't think it's a specific piece of key information that's missing; instead it seems like people are suspicious of the entire deal because of the very short time to review it. I think a lot of people assume that it's a tactic to sneak something by us before we can notice it.

I'm sure that's true, and I suppose that's part of what I'm asking. What could they possibly be sneaking by?

And if it's a no for these people, the reveal of any information that's worth "sneaking by" the public would likely just keep them in the "no" camp, so it wouldn't make a difference.

Like in the letter above, the "more information" crowd do not actually seem to want more information. They want a different deal. So instead of trying to delay the vote under false pretenses, just say you don't like it (not you, specifically, Mass).

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

I used to have this conversation with people when it came to the Olympic bid too. I'd ask why they voted "no", and most would say, "its too expensive!"

When I asked what "too much money" meant or "what should the appropriate cost be?", I'd receive nothing but silence.

I really don't care what position people take, but if your position isn't backed up with some sort of reasoning, I just cant partake in that sort of discussion.

IIRC too, the feds were kicking in a huge amount of money which would go to upgrade a large number of City facilities which are now the responsibility of the City and its taxpayers. Since these facilities still need upgrading, I believe the net cost to the city to do so exceeds the amount that the Olympics was actually costing Calgarians when you factor in revenues and the feds money.

[OldDutch]

I think the Davidson for all his good work has fallen into a common Change Management/Detractor trap. I am actually quite surprised given his background.

Every large project I have been part of you are aware that despite what people tell you, if they are high risk you cross every t and dot every i. People like Farkas and Druh are completely in this group. Their motives are clear, and they'll look to every and any fault to appear to be coming from fairness and not personally being seen as a nay sayer.

Those people you have to be aware of. You need to work to show you are working to be totally fair. You need to record all their responses. You are doing yourself a disservice to not, they are going to come after you and you should know that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Toonage

This morning (I think it was John Bean on 960) suggested that even new arenas or ones having undergone extensive renovations still have line issues (I think he used concessions as the example).

Bottom line/my take? Prepare for washroom waiting disappointment.

This is true, but the bathroom waits at some venues are far more manageable than at others. Rogers Arena in Vancouver is a terrific building, and it is already nearly 25 years old. The bathrooms are always busy between periods, but still efficient enough that you don't have to worry about missing plays.

[TheScorpion]

I think it's reasonable to have been against the Olympic bid but for this. I didn't support the Olympic bid because of the history of IOC corruption, almost inevitable meteoric cost overruns, and the continuing impact of a ten-day event versus an infrastructure project with a 40-year life span.

(And yes, I understand that the Olympics would have shepherded a whole host of similar infrastructure, but the games themselves come at a substantial cost.)

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I think the Davidson for all his good work has fallen into a common Change Management/Detractor trap. I am actually quite surprised given his background.

Every large project I have been part of you are aware that despite what people tell you, if they are high risk you cross every t and dot every i. People like Farkas and Druh are completely in this group. Their motives are clear, and they'll look to every and any fault to appear to be coming from fairness and not personally being seen as a nay sayer.

Those people you have to be aware of. You need to work to show you are working to be totally fair. You need to record all their responses. You are doing yourself a disservice to not, they are going to come after you and you should know that.

I really don't think you want to use her in any project discussion. 16th Avenue went from $20 M project to $89M project as she continually adjusted what she wanted to see, plus doesn't account for the people who went out of business (17th Ave S anyone?). She also is the councilwoman that wanted to build the Greenline with street level cars like Seattle, without accounting for the fact we have 6 months of winter. Dot the I's and cross the T's to make sure she can find the loopholes to do something stupid in her neighbourhood (Close Memorial Drive on Sundays so residents can walk around).

[The Cobra]

My seats are right on the end of the aisle, and on the exact same level as the entrance/exit (row 5) of the 2nd level.

If I need to go to the washroom, I wait for the first whistle after the 12:00 mark of any period. I'm usually the first to arrive to an empty washroom; but by the time I'm done, it is often full.

It's why I like aisle seats.

[Resolute 14]

So I finally actually watched the promo videos for Rossetti's inverted bowl design, and there is a prominent clip of the Flames walking onto an ice surface midway through the sales pitch video. Kinda wish they would have used more CGI shots in a hockey alignment rather than basketball to get a better feel on how it would seem.

[Flamenspiel]

My main question would be what happens if it costs more? For example what happens if it’s 700$ million instead of 550$? Who pays for that? This came up often in the Olympic discussion, I have not heard it here. I posed it to Pete Demong in the city web site, no answer yet.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

My seats are right on the end of the aisle, and on the exact same level as the entrance/exit (row 5) of the 2nd level.

If I need to go to the washroom, I wait for the first whistle after the 12:00 mark of any period. I'm usually the first to arrive to an empty washroom; but by the time I'm done, it is often full.

It's why I like aisle seats.

You pee for like, 25 minutes?

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

My main question would be what happens if it costs more? For example what happens if it’s 700$ million instead of 550$? Who pays for that? This came up often in the Olympic discussion, I have not heard it here. I posed it to Pete Demong in the city web site, no answer yet.

Davison said this morning on 960 that it would be split 50/50

(trying to find it, but may have the source media incorrect, if anyone recalls where this was said please chime in but I know it was said)