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

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Fixed that for you.

I don't think Muta intended to make such a short-sighted and frankly incorrect argument. So no, you did not "fix that for him". Given attendance at Flames/Hitmen/Roughnecks games alone tops 1 million, never mind concerts and other events, it would be rather silly, and frankly disingenuous, to argue that the number of people who would benefit from such a new facility is "tiny" or "statistically insignificant". (And before you try the obvious rebuttal with a red herring argument, I am well aware that is not 1 million unique people.)

The number for a football stadium would obviously be much smaller, but depending on how it is used, is still not insignificant.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Not really. 3rd world countries have better infrastructure because they just built it - its a developing country. They also tend to have better transportation networks and communication networks because they were just built as well.

Not necessarily.

I've travelled to several developing countries, and I find their biggest issues are crumbling infrastructure, horrible transportation networks and non-existent (or severely lacking) transit.

Rush hour in Beirut, Cairo or Damascus would make Calgary's rush hour look like a cake walk.

They do, however, like to build spectacular pieces here and there (like stadiums, monuments, sky scrapers, etc.) to keep the people distracted.

My argument was that a free market economy should be able to build stuff that's nicer than what they have in 3rd world countries because all of us know it's a superior economic model. If that requires a bit of (again, 100%) public funding, then so be it.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

Let's actually put forth a plan to pursue one of those (the Olympics is the only one that is realistic and would justify a new stadium) as the catalyst, rather than building something and hoping we get an event that makes it worthwhile.

I know that many of these events, particularly the World Cup, have been discussed by the right groups of people.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I heard on the radio that the stadium will be 480 million and the surrounding area make up that 120 million. Is that not the case?

That's correct. Pretty much what I said.

Sure there may be infrastructure additions that will cost money for the Calgary arena but I'm just saying that it's not a given that it will cost more than $600 million. It might, but it might not.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Muta

I know that many of these events, particularly the World Cup, have been discussed by the right groups of people.

Further to Muta's point:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/opin...world-cup.html

It would be embarassing if Canada hosts a World Cup in 13 years, but skips Calgary because our facilities are lacking (which is exactly what happened in 2007 and will happen in 2015).

[nik-]

Originally Posted by _Q_

My argument was that a free market economy should be able to build stuff that's nicer than what they have in 3rd world countries because all of us know it's a superior economic model. If that requires a bit of (again, 100%) public funding, then so be it.

This blurb is so contradictory that it's bordering on hilarious. If free market was allowed to decide this, there'd never be a public dollar spent on arenas and stadiums.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Further to Muta's point:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/opin...world-cup.html

It would be embarassing if Canada hosts a World Cup in 13 years, but skips Calgary because our facilities are lacking (which is exactly what happened in 2007 and will happen in 2015).

Exactly. My guess is that if a new stadium is not in place, Calgary will be left off the list of venues.

Games would then be played in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto and Montreal. Perhaps even Regina. And without Calgary, that really could hurt our bid chances given Calgary's international connections.

[Senator Clay Davis]

There is probably around a 0% chance Canada is getting a World Cup anytime soon. America has at least 25-30 facilities better than us, and they'll get another one before Canada gets one (both because they want one, and are a more important market to FIFA). If Canada is getting a World Cup it won't be for 30+ years.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by nik-

This blurb is so contradictory that it's bordering on hilarious. If free market was allowed to decide this, there'd never be a public dollar spent on arenas and stadiums.

We all know there's no such thing as a completely free market economy. Most industrialized nations, however, have a healthy mix that seems to work.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Not necessarily.

I've travelled to several developing countries, and I find their biggest issues are crumbling infrastructure, horrible transportation networks and non-existent (or severely lacking) transit.

Rush hour in Beirut, Cairo or Damascus would make Calgary's rush hour look like a cake walk.

They do, however, like to build spectacular pieces here and there (like stadiums, monuments, sky scrapers, etc.) to keep the people distracted.

My argument was that a free market economy should be able to build stuff that's nicer than what they have in 3rd world countries because all of us know it's a superior economic model. If that requires a bit of (again, 100%) public funding, then so be it.

So did you just say my point is correct?

I'm sure you could find some counter examples where developing/3rd world countries aren't fully developed. Good for you for finding that.

Its funny in your last statement that you are saying a free market economy should be required to publicly fund infrastructure. Isn't that the opposite of a free market economy? I should point out, though, the king of free market economy... the USA... might have a shiny building here and there, but if you think its nice buildings block to block, well, you are wrong.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

So did you just say my point is correct?

I'm sure you could find some counter examples where developing/3rd world countries aren't fully developed. Good for you for finding that.

Its funny in your last statement that you are saying a free market economy should be required to publicly fund infrastructure. Isn't that the opposite of a free market economy? I should point out, though, the king of free market economy... the USA... might have a shiny building here and there, but if you think its nice buildings block to block, well, you are wrong.

No I didn't say you were correct.

You said that third world countries have better infrastructure because they just recently built it all and I said that besides a few shiny examples here and there, their infrastructure sucks.

I also never said that a free market economy should be required to publicly fund infrastructure. I said it would be alright if a portion of the infrastructure was funded by tax payers. Our economic structure is conducive to great amounts of wealth for our citizens. That wealth is taxed and is used for infrastructure. Our infrastructure should reflect that wealth.

[Ozy_Flame]

It's embarrassing now that we don't have a venue for the 2015 Women's World Cup. That is TRAGIC. We also missed out at the 2007 U-23 FIFA World Cup. Embarrassing.

For god sakes, MONCTON is a choice venue over Calgary for WORLD CUP SOCCER. . . . MONCTON!!

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by _Q_

No I didn't say you were correct.

You said that third world countries have better infrastructure because they just recently built it all and I said that besides a few shiny examples here and there, their infrastructure sucks.

I also never said that a free market economy should be required to publicly fund infrastructure. I said it would be alright if a portion of the infrastructure was funded by tax payers. Our economic structure is conducive to great amounts of wealth for our citizens. That wealth is taxed and is used for infrastructure. Our infrastructure should reflect that wealth.

So kind of like 1st world countries like USA then?

FWIW, parts of me do agree public money should go towards building a stadium that is used by a large portion of the population. I just find it incredibly funny that you think free markets should be funding them and wealth should be taxed to fund public infrastructure. I also find it funny you don't recognize that developing countries are building new social infrastructure and thus its better... really, you might have travelled a little bit here, but I don't think you really know whats going on. Sorry to say...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

That's cool. Agree to disagree, I guess. Would you be able to tell me the budgets on the facilities you've referred to that are being renovated?

You can't keep putting in $15M here and there and expect to get something like it's new. That's like pumping air into your tires of your aging car and saying the car is just fine... At some point you have to replace it because it's just getting old and worn out, and the costs to maintain it aren't worth it anymore.

The major renovation to Spartan Stadium (which looks to have a fairly similar basic setup to McMahon, although I'm not an architect), adding 24 luxury suites, 800 club seats, a "Grand Entrance", 18,000 sq ft concourse, office space, recruiting lounge, bathroom renovations and 3,000 additional seats cost $64mil in 2005. They have since revamped the audio system and installed state of the art video boards at a cost of $10mil. This week they announced plans to construct new locker rooms and media facilities along with more bathroom and concourse space for $20mil. So $94mil for a stadium to be considered well up to par for the Big Ten.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I'm in favour of getting these new facilities in the city, and partial funding of them through public dollars, as I feel there is benefit.

But, there is nothing "embarrassing" about missing out on events. Not every city needs to be set up for all sports, or concerts, or arts events that come around. A good city needs to be set up to get their fair share, but we don't need to be capable of facilitating everything that comes along.

Missing out on Women's World Cup or U-23 is far from embarrassing. So we aren't set up for soccer, that's all that means. It's one sport / event out of many. If we aren't capable of hosting anything, that would be embarrassing. And I'm not saying the city can't work towards getting more set up for soccer events if it makes sense, but missing out on events that a huge chunk of the population couldn't give a rats ass about isn't embarassing, we need to keep perspective.

Moncton isn't capable of hosting half the events Calgary is, the fact they are more prepared for certain soccer events is really meaningless in the big picture.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

I know that many of these events, particularly the World Cup, have been discussed by the right groups of people.

If Canada is awarded a World Cup in the next 30 years I'll eat my hat.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

So kind of like 1st world countries like USA then?

FWIW, parts of me do agree public money should go towards building a stadium that is used by a large portion of the population. I just find it incredibly funny that you think free markets should be funding them and wealth should be taxed to fund public infrastructure. I also find it funny you don't recognize that developing countries are building new social infrastructure and thus its better... really, you might have travelled a little bit here, but I don't think you really know whats going on. Sorry to say...

I actually don't know what to say about this.

Would I rather live in San Diego, Houston, New York, Washington DC, Seattle, Phoenix, Charlotte, Philadelphia, etc. or Damascus, Cairo, Kinshasa, Mumbai, Islamabad, Karachi, Bangkok?

It's a pretty easy decision and a huge part of it is the quality of the roads, stadiums, public spaces, transit, hospitals, schools, etc.

It's not even close dude, sorry. I actually have no clue where you get your ideas from.

[Mango]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

It's embarrassing now that we don't have a venue for the 2015 Women's World Cup. That is TRAGIC. We also missed out at the 2007 U-23 FIFA World Cup. Embarrassing.

For god sakes, MONCTON is a choice venue over Calgary for WORLD CUP SOCCER. . . . MONCTON!!

Unfortunately, this has a lot to do with Alberta Soccer. It's a lot of political nonsense. Combined with their little respect for Calgary as a soccer city and our lack of facilities, we are ridiculously far down the totem pole when it comes to even being considered hosting national team games and events.

During a stretch of women's friendlies last year as the team was preparing for the Olympics, they hosted a game versus China in Moncton. The CSA was floored with the amount of support for soccer, especially women's, in that region. That particular match exceeded the expectations of everyone involved. It left a great impression and that's why they were selected. The Moncton pitch is one of the country's best maintained and is the only one with actual grass for the Women's World Cup.

But I digress...

I don't want to totally derail the thread with soccer talk because I could yammer on for hours about the whole thing.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I actually don't know what to say about this.

Would I rather live in San Diego, Houston, New York, Washington DC, Seattle, Phoenix, Charlotte, Philadelphia, etc. or Damascus, Cairo, Kinshasa, Mumbai, Islamabad, Karachi, Bangkok?

It's a pretty easy decision and a huge part of it is the quality of the roads, stadiums, public spaces, transit, hospitals, schools, etc.

It's not even close dude, sorry. I actually have no clue where you get your ideas from.

Wait, yesterday you were arguing that those 3rd world places have better stadiums. Today you're saying you'd rather live in those developed cities partly due to their having better stadiums. Make up your mind.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

That's correct. Pretty much what I said.

Sure there may be infrastructure additions that will cost money for the Calgary arena but I'm just saying that it's not a given that it will cost more than $600 million. It might, but it might not.

My bad. Me no read good. Read it as the stadium is 600 million plus all the stuff around being an additional 120 million for a total of 720 million.