[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yes, there would be a lease in place. In this case the Bucs amazingly got a property tax-free lease which is mind boggling but I suppose there was the threat they could move elsewhere. In this case the Flames threatening to move would be kind of an empty threat, as leaving one of the top markets in hockey seems like a pretty poor idea.

That's perhaps just bad business on the city side? I would imagine that because some of the owners have businesses here, they like having a good relationship with other organizations (ie: the city).

Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I would venture to believe the ownership group has huge vested interests in Calgary doing well and perhaps love Calgary as much as the average citizen?

I see where you're coming from, but perhaps I'm naive enough to not be concerned by it.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

I stopped watching. Disgusted. By a lot of things. Hope this doesn't work out.

relevant username

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

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.

The City got a nominal amount ($1 or equivalent). Flames kept revenue and maintained building. City spent for renovations.

[polak]

The CFL rendering looks pretty bad, not going to lie.

[Clever_Iggy]

With the caveat that this opinion is only based on the little that was revealed this afternoon, I'm very disappointed. Several concerns:

1. A multi-use facility like the field house, IMO, looks junky. All I can think about is how crappy the Skydome looks and imagine an updated version of that. Multi-use facilities in sports have been dying since the Skydome for a reason. Retractable seats? Ugh.

2. The comment about relying on transit is scary. Unless some crazy shuttle system is also in place, this isn't realistic.

3. Little to no comment on remediation or infrastructure requirements.

4. A complete dome for the field house? I would have loved to have seen a permanent cover for the spectator portion and a retractable roof for the field.

I can't help but wonder what the hell was going on for 7-8 years... for this? A disappointing design in a half assed roll out?

With immediate community potential concerns, lack of enthusiasm from parts of council and critical issues still remaining, I'm setting the over/under at 2025 before the Flames/Stamps have a new home.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Which returning user is Cappy?

What is a returning user?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

More Designs/Renderings

There had better not be bench seating like it looks there.

[dino7c]

Nenshi is an unqualified clown anyway he will be long gone before any of this happens...he used hipsters and social media to get elected and his charm is certainly wearing off

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Weitz

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

I have realized all along that your only purpose here is to push your own inferiority complex and to try - as you always do - to make the topic all about yourself or the Oilers or Edmonton. It got old a very long time ago.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by 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

Why would you presume this? It's one option. It can be funded using conventional financing from the Flames as well. Not sure what you mean by "borrowing for the building".

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Cappy

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!

You need some reading comprehension. I said Calgary considers itself world class, time to act like it. Of course the city wants to develop it...but when the province covers you for indemnity on the creosote it scares EVERYONE away unless your billionaire rich like the Flames owners. There's a reason some of the most valuable land in the city has sat grotesquely underutilized for decades.

Its a proposal and a vision. Not some RFP/technical document.

[Canuck-Hater]

I feel like we haven't had a straight answer on how much of the funding will come from the taxpayer.

[Benched]

and the politicians response to the mayor's statement that 'these are unfunded projects and there is no money'

she says that's 'just sad. we have this great vision but no money to do it'

Her connotation: sounds like a buy it now, worry about paying for it later approach.

Personally, I prefer the mayor's more fiscally responsible approach especially given the current economic outlook.


*shrug*

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Cappy

What is a returning user?

I have no idea.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Nenshi is an unqualified clown anyway he will be long gone before any of this happens...he used hipsters and social media to get elected and his charm is certainly wearing off

Yeah, balking at the cost and taking a sober look at the proposal ... what a clown.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

You need some reading comprehension. I said Calgary considers itself world class, time to act like it. Of course the city wants to develop it...but when the province covers you for indemnity on the creosote it scares EVERYONE away unless your billionaire rich like the Flames owners. There's a reason some of the most valuable land in the city has sat grotesquely underutilized for decades.

Its a proposal and a vision. Not some RFP/technical document.

We dont need a stadium to be world class

There is a reason. They built a highway next to the river. Why has East village been neglected for so many years?

I would much rather have an RFP and a technical document than a "Vision"

[CroFlames]

The stadium part looks reeeeeeally not so nice. Very amateur.

I hope that the stadium doesn't suffer because it's being shoehorned into a small area.

[N-E-B]

I doubt the actual stadium will look anything like that "rendering". I think that's just to provide an idea of what the retractable seats will look like. That image doesn't look like it would fit anywhere near 30,000 people. Remember, these aren't images of the actual project.

I'm surprised at some of the negativity in here. When this opens, and is awesome, I hope those who complained never go to the stadium. I guess the phrase "you're never going to please everyone" really is true.

As for using tax payers dollars, I want a new arena and I pay taxes so go ahead and use my tax dollars. I really don't care.

[azzarish]

What's McMahon's capacity? Close to 40,000? But the fieldhouse would support 30,000. Am I the only one that find's that a bit strange?

Surely, you would increase the capacity or get to close to whatever McMahon currently supports. So, if the stadium is MLS ready now (even though it wouldn't be sustainable in today's Calgary market) it would still only hold 30,000. If we're going full out with a state of the art facility why not have more seats?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

King also said the roof of the buildings are sloped towards the river so that they meet the city by-law that buildings don't cast a shadow on the river.

I had no idea this was a by-law in Calgary