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

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Of which Lebanon is none of those things.

Sounds good cowboy.

http://travel.gc.ca/destinations/lebanon

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against non-essential travel to Lebanon due to heightened tensions and crime.
Ensure that your travel documents are up to date and register yourselves and your families online with the Registration of Canadians Abroad (ROCA) service in order to receive the latest advice from the Canadian embassy in Beirut.

See also, Lebanon Civil War 2006.

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-c...Advice/Lebanon

We strongly advise you to reconsider your need to travel to Lebanon at this time because of the unpredictable security and political situation. The situation could deteriorate without warning.

Violence is possible due to ongoing political and sectarian tensions. Violent incidents resulting in deaths and injuries continue to occur throughout the country. Australians could be caught up in violence directed at others. If violence escalates, departure options may be severely limited. You are responsible for ensuring you are able to depart Lebanon and that your travel documentation remains up-to-date.

The primary road between downtown Beirut and the international airport can be blocked without warning. Access to the airport may be cut off, potentially for extended periods, if the security situation deteriorates.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by _Q_

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?



I'm not. Thanks for coming out though.




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.

Every point you make is, IMO, weak and actually a bit sad. If you're (or anyone, aside from maybe a stadium Architect) travelling to London to see Wembley stadium or Muchich to see Alianz Arena you have truly missed the purpose of travel or simply appreciate some (IMO) pretty foolish things.

I am not going to try and respond to everyone of your inane ramblings anymore, but I will simply say I strongly disagree with each and every point you've made in this thread and believe our mayor would side with me if he were involved in the debate.

If this city had no NHL rink or CFL stadium I might agree if you, but we do have both, both do exactly what we need them to do and we have a ton of other needs not being met at this time (ring road for one). I will never agree with public funding of stadiums and can only hope that, at the very least, the city stands up and says no, even if the province isn't able to.

[Senator Clay Davis]

A new stadium paid for by taxpayers is perhaps the worst in welfare for the rich. We contribute to a new facility, and in almost every single case said facility is more expensive for John Q. Public to attend, and almost certainly there are fewer seats in favor of luxury boxes, again at the expense of John Q. Public. All this so the owners can make more money, by charging more, for fewer seats, with more luxury boxes. So if someone can find me where John Q. Public benefits in this equation, I'd love to hear it. A nice new stadium? Great, but since most people will use it 2 or 3 times a year (and in the case of a new football/soccer facility, likely under 1 time a year average), it ends up being a waste for what amounts to a want, not a need (we need roads, we need schools, we want sports teams, don't need em). Limited tax dollars + unlimited wants = Choose only the needs.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by valo403

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

Hey, good for them.

Fans, STH, the major tenant, operator and the building's owner are all exaggerating I guess. At what point would you be convinced that the current facility is inadequate for the CFL?

$100+ million renovation
New stadium

One of two will happen. Who will pay? That's a different debate. The fact that McMahon is a terrible CFL stadium for the City, league and fans is not up for debate no matter how many times you compare it to the facilities of the Massapequa Fighting Boogers and the Muskogee Junior Kitty Kats.

[Stillman16]

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?

I think this is a huge stretch. With both NHL and WHL, affordable for all hockey fans, not to mention NLL and figure skating....concerts, kids shows, international events (hockey, Brier, figure skaing....) the list goes on!

Sure it houses the NHL as a main tenant, but it would be utillized by MANY others, and just cause a citizen isn't a hockey fan (or can't get a ticket to NHL) doesn't mean they wouldn't go to the stadium for one of the many other events held there. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who wouldn't go to the "rink" at least once a year.....

But you'd find MANY people who never set foot in a south hospital.....or on the C-train.....or downtown....but all those are necessary parts of a city too.

[The Yen Man]

Bottom line is, if Calgary wants to attract world class events, they'll need facilities to host them. If Calgary is ok with these events skipping them over because of inadequate facilities, then by all means keep what they have.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

Agreed about the financing. As well, my point was more towards infrastructure in general; not just stadiums. Probably should have been more clear on that.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

The old Wembley was standing there since 1923. When it got outdated, it was replaced... like a world class city would do. Before 1923, I'm sure London had an adequate stadium though, similar to McMahon.

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Sounds good cowboy.

http://travel.gc.ca/destinations/lebanon



See also, Lebanon Civil War 2006.

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-c...Advice/Lebanon

2006 wasn't a civil war. Their civil war ended in 1990. 2006 was a skirmish between Israel and Hezbollah. But anyways, this thread isn't about Lebanon.

[Table 5]

There's not 1 building in any city that makes it "world-class" (god I hate that term, btw). It's a collection of building, people, cultural events, business, neighborhoods etc. that makes a city what it is. Calgary needs lots of improvements to even begin a discussion of it being included.

But at some point, you have to start somewhere, and elevate what you put out there. I think who finances the stadium is a very viable debate....but to say that there is no value in having a nice stadium just because it doesn't "make" a city, seems a little short-sighted. I think we should always try to shoot above our weight when can.

I'd be willing to chip in to a stadium if it gets us an MLS team. And if I get discounted tickets for doing so, ha.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by _Q_

2006 wasn't a civil war. Their civil war ended in 1990. 2006 was a skirmish between Israel and Hezbollah. But anyways, this thread isn't about Lebanon.

Sure thing. Sorry I brought it up.

[The Yen Man]

If they ever put this to a vote, I know I would support some public funds to build an arena.

[Barnes]

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.

Maybe they would have more money if they stopped giving MSG a free ride with city taxes.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Hey, good for them.

Fans, STH, the major tenant, operator and the building's owner are all exaggerating I guess. At what point would you be convinced that the current facility is inadequate for the CFL?

$100+ million renovation
New stadium

One of two will happen. Who will pay? That's a different debate. The fact that McMahon is a terrible CFL stadium for the City, league and fans is not up for debate no matter how many times you compare it to the facilities of the Massapequa Fighting Boogers and the Muskogee Junior Kitty Kats.

Or you know, the University of Michigan (just a tiny football program, you may have heard of it). Maybe Michigan State? Notre Dame? But feel free to keep up your current line of argument, it's great at not addressing anything and confirming that you don't know what you're talking about.

I like that you somehow think the owner doesn't have reason to exaggerate the need. Who do you think benefits most from a renovation? Fans ALWAYS think the grass is greener, but the reality is that the stadium experience at McMahon differs little from that at any non-NFL stadium in North America.

Btw, I've said repeatedly that a renovation is required.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Table 5

There's not 1 building in any city that makes it "world-class" (god I hate that term, btw). It's a collection of building, people, cultural events, business, neighborhoods etc. that makes a city what it is. Calgary needs lots of improvements to even begin a discussion of it being included.

But at some point, you have to start somewhere, and elevate what you put out there. I think who finances the stadium is a very viable debate....but to say that there is no value in having a nice stadium just because it doesn't "make" a city, seems a little short-sighted. I think we should always try to shoot above our weight when can.

I'd be willing to chip in to a stadium if it gets us an MLS team. And if I get discounted tickets for doing so, ha.

There is a value in replacing McMahon. The thing is embarrassing, but the city or the province replacing a CFL stadium is a non-starter for me. If they want to build a southern Alberta Commonwealth, that's a different discussion.

My problem is allocating public funds so we have the "right" to get charged more to watch the same thing in a new building, not the allocation of public funds in general.

[Tinordi]

Want a new stadium? Great pay for it yourself.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Bottom line is, if Calgary wants to attract world class events, they'll need facilities to host them. If Calgary is ok with these events skipping them over because of inadequate facilities, then by all means keep what they have.

What events would skip Calgary if McMahon was not replaced? A U2 concert every 5 years? And that's assuming that renovations wouldn't solve the problems.

[Brannigans Law]

1) Lebanon is a terrible place to live or visit right now. Dangerous and poor.
2) Some stadiums are a tourist spot. Others have mentioned some but also in Milan many guidebooks suggest a tour of AC and Inters football stadium. Obviously no one will want to visit a hockey arena or a CFL football stadium, but some of the European football stadiums are remarkable. Or Jerry-world in Dallas.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Every point you make is, IMO, weak and actually a bit sad. If you're (or anyone, aside from maybe a stadium Architect) travelling to London to see Wembley stadium or Muchich to see Alianz Arena you have truly missed the purpose of travel or simply appreciate some (IMO) pretty foolish things.

I am not going to try and respond to everyone of your inane ramblings anymore, but I will simply say I strongly disagree with each and every point you've made in this thread and believe our mayor would side with me if he were involved in the debate.

If this city had no NHL rink or CFL stadium I might agree if you, but we do have both, both do exactly what we need them to do and we have a ton of other needs not being met at this time (ring road for one). I will never agree with public funding of stadiums and can only hope that, at the very least, the city stands up and says no, even if the province isn't able to.

How are my arguments weak? Honest question.

I wouldn't make Wembley or Alianz a main reason to visit London or Munich. But since I'm a sports and architecture fan, I would definitely go check them out if I'm in the area (which I did when I went to Munich). Why people travel is completely different for each individual. It's a bit ignorant to think that people should all travel for the same reasons you do.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

Agreed about the financing. As well, my point was more towards infrastructure in general; not just stadiums. Probably should have been more clear on that.

I think Calgary is doing pretty well on that front. Every time I come to town there's a new building, and while people argue over the architectural glory of a lot of them I'm always pretty proud to see the way the city is moving forward.

I should add that I'm not against some government involvement, I just think it should be in a situation where there's a genuine need and an ability for governments to recoup their expenditure, be it through increased tax revenue or something else.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

I think this is a huge stretch. With both NHL and WHL, affordable for all hockey fans, not to mention NLL and figure skating....concerts, kids shows, international events (hockey, Brier, figure skaing....) the list goes on!

Sure it houses the NHL as a main tenant, but it would be utillized by MANY others, and just cause a citizen isn't a hockey fan (or can't get a ticket to NHL) doesn't mean they wouldn't go to the stadium for one of the many other events held there. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who wouldn't go to the "rink" at least once a year.....

But you'd find MANY people who never set foot in a south hospital.....or on the C-train.....or downtown....but all those are necessary parts of a city too.

Agree to disagree I guess, because I can't prove my numbers, but I certainly stand behind them. Lets just think about all of the people who can't afford things like concerts or hockey, then about all the people who dislike hockey and pop concerts and then about all the people who might not dislike hockey or concerts but don't like them enough to pay $100's of dollars to see them live and then about all of the recent immigrants (as for the most part new immigrants aren't big into hockey or american pop music). Keeping all that in mind along with the fact that (for hockey anyways) most tickets are occupaied by the same 16,000 people everygame I would say 520,000 is a very lofty estimate.

Edit: To clarify, 520,000 people is roughly 40% of our population...