[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[dino7c]

if this doesn't happen that land is gonna sit contaminated for another 70 years don't kid yourself

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You don't know that. KK did not have that answer. In the Edmonton deal the city put up the money.

It's just a way for them to spin it. But the way he sounded while he answered the question it appears they will be asking the city to finance it in my opinion.

Again by how KK sounded it sounds like they will ask the City and explore commercial options in the event the city says no.

Yes, and? What the hell is your point?

King made it very clear that the options include either the city or commercial lenders or a combination of both. So, you're basically arguing exactly what King said. Go you?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Francis finally asks the revenue split question...

Not impressed with King's response....he appeared to be taken off guard and kind of just mumbled something about the generosity of the ownership group.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Francis finally asks the revenue split question...

and he ducks it hard.

[CroFlames]

I really really hope the stadium doesn't suffer in quality because it's part of a field house.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by dino7c

if this doesn't happen that land is gonna sit contaminated for another 70 years don't kid yourself

100000x this. There is ZERO chance the city does anything with this land...there's a reason its sat underutilized for soooooooo long.

[Itse]

Heh, some people here seem really allergic to any kind of marketing speak.
It was a pitch. What did you expect? As far as marketing pitches go, that was pretty toned down IMHO. And I generally don't like marketing pitches.

(And it's not like I really care one way or the other.)

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Comparing the flames new arena to a public library?

200M facility that 5% of the population uses...and they were talking about the field house

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You don't know that. KK did not have that answer. In the Edmonton deal the city put up the money.

In the Edmonton deal, unless I'm much mistaken, the city borrowed the money on its own credit and will recover it from the ticket tax. It's not like they had the money sitting around in their sock drawer and spent it on this rather than something else.

Whoever the borrower of record is, the effect is that of a mortgage underwritten by moneys set aside from ticket revenues.

[JetsFlamesFan]

I'll just be happy if they clean up the feedback from the mic, god I can't even listen anymore.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, and? What the hell is your point?

King made it very clear that the options include either the city or commercial lenders or a combination of both. So, you're basically arguing exactly what King said. Go you?

Just pointing out its a similar thing that gained the vitriol from the Edmonton project by regular joes who don't support it.

I personally think its a ton of money to ask from the City in this time but am not against the project. I do wish they would make 2 separate buildings though.

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You don't know that. KK did not have that answer. In the Edmonton deal the city put up the money.

It's just a way for them to spin it. But the way he sounded while he answered the question it appears they will be asking the city to finance it in my opinion.

Again by how KK sounded it sounds like they will ask the City and explore commercial options in the event the city says no.

Ok...so we will go "how it sounded to you" with your obvious bias to the negative. It was financed in Edmonton, and frankly would be illogical to think that it wouldn't be financed here. So since neither of us "know for sure", I think I'll go with what makes the most sense.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Cappy

In a perfect world, yes. But the vast majority of city/municipal owned arenas are revenue neutral - i.e. they make no money on rent. The title is in their name. 100% of profits go to the FLames. Usually, the maintenance is covered by the flames as well.

Screw those cities for a sec, how was the agreement with the Saddledome? If it was reasonable, why can't we assume the same will occur?

Again, if you rent a place, a landlord often pays for repairs on a building. How is this any different?

Call me stupid, call me optimistic, but I believe a reasonable agreement (similar to what was in place with Saddledome) will be negotiated for which both Flames ownership groups and and City of Calgary will benefit.

[polak]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

100000x this. There is ZERO chance the city does anything with this land...there's a reason its sat underutilized for soooooooo long.

Yup. The city seems to be under the illusion that some miracle angel investor will come in and clean everything up and build some awesome condos or something.

If it didn't happen in the last boom, it'll never happen.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

Wrong.
1)Calgary does consider itself a world class city. Time to act like it.
2) That land generates next to no revenue from that land. Moderinizing it adds a potentially huge new tax base.
3) Never said anything about Olympics...just the people using them. Look at the usage of the existing 1988 facilities!
4) The province indemnifies the city unless they put a shovel in the ground...this is why NOTHING has happened there until now.

1) your statement offers zero argument. World Class! Prestige! ARENA!
2) as noted, the city wants to develop the west village once the east village is completed as to not water down both areas (a la Victoria Park). there will be no revenue from that land in any event. The city will get zero revenue. The talk of residences and condos is all speculation that studies have revealed are not guarenteed by building an arena.
3) ...
4) again, we dont know that. KK said it but I havent seen a document. Also this doesnt take into account what that land would be used for but for the arena. http://www.realestateforums.com/ref/...thias_tita.pdf

AND ONCE MORE the Flames haven't said they are paying for the remediation!

[hockey.modern]

More Designs/Renderings

[Benched]

from atbs' post on the NEWS thread, Nenshi's statement echo some of my concerns.

http://calgarymayor.ca/stories/mayor...house-proposal

The following is a statement from Mayor Naheed Nenshi regarding the "CalgaryNext" announcement made earlier today:

Today, the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (the company that owns the Calgary Flames and Stampeders, among other professional sports teams) released an intriguing proposal for a new arena, sports fieldhouse, and football stadium. This project has been in the works for some time, and I am pleased that the Flames ownership group is now engaging the public on what they would like to see. I also appreciate that the ownership group has come forward with a definitive financial commitment—something that has rarely been seen in other cities.

However, there are a number of challenges that must now be addressed:

The proposal has not been part of The City's comprehensive capital planning process, and does not form part of the plan, under which the City's capital funds are fully allocated through 2018.
The proposal includes incorporating The City’s proposed (and much-needed) fieldhouse into the facility. However, that project, while a very high priority for the City, remains unfunded.
The funding proposal includes a $250 million “ticket tax”, but it is unclear if The City will be asked to provide the upfront financing for this.
The proposed site requires significant expenditures to remediate the environmental contamination there. That remediation is also unfunded.
In addition, the proposal requires the contribution of land, a community revitalization levy and significant investments in infrastructure to make the West Village a complete and vibrant community.
Therefore, there are very significant requirements for public funding beyond the fieldhouse funding, and there is currently no money.

I have said for a long time—and continue to strongly believe—that public money must be for public benefit and not private profit. The question for Council, the ownership group, and all Calgarians is whether this proposal meets that test.

That said, I truly appreciate the efforts of the ownership group in bringing forward an innovative project in a thoughtful, professional, and ethical way. I firmly believe that these Calgarians want to do something exceptional for our community.

City Council will ensure that that there is significant public engagement and will work cooperatively with the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation and the other orders of government to determine whether this project is viable.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Which returning user is Cappy?

[greentree]

Originally Posted by calumniate

I think this is the best location. What a gift that this particular area has not undergone development yet. In many cities a location such as this would be virtually impossible

It has not undergone development because it is badly contaminated. Some gift.
The Flames proposal could get things moving though, i.e. cleaned up, which would be good. But the rudimentary concept unveiled today is...underwhelming to say the least and I doubt the typical Calgarian will get too excited over it. That's it for me. Had my piece.
Final note: Calgary is a great city, full of confidence. Torontonians are the kind who aspire to be "world class." So cheesy. Please don't.

[GGG]

Im concerned about the cities capacity to hold this debt and still finance other projects. Presuming the city fronts the CRL and Ticket Tax plus borrows for the building and remediation you would be looking at 800 billion in debt for the city.

I like the idea but definitely concerned over the financial side. Also concerned that its a fieldhouse in name only as the op costs may be prohibitive for small scale use.

I'd perfer just an arena with no city contribution outside of the CRL and the flames paying interest on the ticket tax. And the province covering remediation