[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Saw this bit on the CalgaryNext Website, I think it demonstrates a good deal of the pie-in-the-sky dreaming going on by the proponents of the project:

"Compact Urban Form: The site is well-connected to transit via the Sunalta LRT station, river pathways, and surrounding community streets. There is also plenty of direct access to major roadways like Bow Trail."

To break it down:

1) Sunalta station is one station, the Dome currently has two, if you want to walk a little. I don't think the platform capacity at Sunalta could handle the crowds.

2) "Well connected by river pathways"?! Are they drunk? There's no way to the North side of the river anywhere near there. And are people supposed to cycle to the NYE's game on December 31 when it's -20?

3) "Well connected by surrounding community streets"?! They are drunk. Sunalta is largely closed off; those community streets only go to that community. Which is great for fans....who live in Sunalta.

4) "Direct access from major roadways like Bow Trail." First of all, that's only one roadway not multiple roadways, second, who cares there's only 1500 parking spots. Third, it'll still be congested anyway because there's only one way in and out.

Needs a bridge, a separate roadway, larger/multiple c-train stations, and ideally year-round hovercraft public transport from the river. That or blimp public transportation; many tiny blimps.

In short, I love the idea, it's just really in the wrong spot.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

No it hasn't. Please show me where the City has been asked to contribute more than $200MM.
I don't believe that is the CLR. To me, the CLR is new, not currently existing, money.

Then you honestly don't understand how a CRL works. I thank my lucky stars you have zero say in the decision to fund this.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Obviously the the concept drawing was bare-bones. But there was no mention at all by KK the roof would be retractable. Only that it would be translucent. I realize the retractable roof costs more.

What I am suggesting is that given a choice, most people would prefer a retractable roof. Why would you not (besides cost)? If the game is played on a beautiful evening, wouldn't you want a nice breeze? If its freezing and snowing, close the roof.


EDIT: The Cards stadium also has the fancy removable pitch, adding quite a bit of cost.

No reason aside from cost. But cost is huge, not only in making the thing, but on the constant maintenance.

[Sec218]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

In short, I love the idea, it's just really in the wrong spot.

I agree, keep it near the Stampede grounds. I just bought a house in Ramsay, which makes it very easy as a STH to walk to games.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Robbob

From my understanding the 200M is a gift to the project but they surely will benefit.

As fro the management details that wasn't really established. I know Francis brought up a revenue sharing since it was city owned and King just rambled on about a formula which didn't really answer anything.

Simplified, the current deal for the Saddledome is: city owns arena, Flames manage it. Flames get all revenue, Flames eat all costs. IIRC, the 1994 deal had the Flames pay the city a flat fee of $1 million per year for all this, but I believe that was changed at some point, I don't remember how or when.

My bet for the new arena is the Flames will try for the same. Certainly they would love for the city to take on more of the risk while they keep all the revenue, but I don't see the city going for that.

The fieldhouse stadium is going to be the confusing one. CSE will want all revenues associated with Stampeder games, but I have no clue how they and the city would mange the public aspects of it. And I think until that gets sorted out, King really cant answer any questions on how revenue would be shared - that's yet to be negotiated.

[Tinordi]

It's particularly rich that some of this board's most ardent "conservatives" have virtually no problem with wasting tax dollars on a subsidy to a very successful private business. You want to talk about inefficiency of public spending then this is pretty much the definition.

It's at least revealing of how ideologically bankrupt their view of the world is.

[Resolute 14]

There we go. The standard, content-free, Tinordi hit and run troll post.

[Robbob]

I think another thing to consider is moving the stamps downtown will free up a very decent sized chunk of land near the university. Whether it is developed to expand on the campus (win for the city) or partially developed for high density residential/commercial (more tax revenue) it is an added bonus to the project.

[Plett25]

I don't like domes, but I've never been in a dome with a transparent roof and lots of windows at the ends. I think this field house will be more like a greenhouse than a gymnasium.

If the windows are moveable like the new stadium in Minneapolis, this might be a better configuration than a retractable roof.

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Honestly, yes I would be willing to spend more to do it right the first time, rather than end up with something that kind of fits for a few years and then is an embarrassment. I guess I am in the minority on this one. Or maybe I just assume that for $890 million you could build a fantastic new arena AND a 25000 seat football/soccer stadium AND a $200 million indoor amateur fieldhouse?

Just a quick google would put the 3 facilities higher.

Riders Stadium $278 mil
Field House $200 mil
Edmonton arena $480 mil
Total $958 mil

It would be cheaper to build the 3 together, but I don't think the savings are nearly as much as they put it.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Lol, inferiority complex? Nice try.

Look, there's still a long way to go, but everything the Flames have shown so far is a sign that they are not very experienced/competent at this development business. They've already wasted half a decade to be at a point where they should've been 2-3 years ago. Talk to anyone in the industry and engaged with development/architecture, and they'll tell you what the Flames have showed is under-developed and thin on details, compared to the time they've had to work on this. You don't have to have a final rendering to see where the massive holes are.

It's not about inferiority complexes. It's about expecting better.

The Oilers didn't have their ducks in a row right off the hop. The price tag increased during negotiations. The terms changed. The designs were finally released and the funding model was the last thing sorted out.

Calgary has taken a different approach. They got funding model in place before the design. Which makes sense. Why design every nook and cranny without knowing if it's even going to proceed.

They know this is process, based on the Edmonton deal. More details will come out as the process starts to gain momentum

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

No it hasn't. Please show me where the City has been asked to contribute more than $200MM.
I don't believe that is the CLR. To me, the CLR is new, not currently existing, money.

The CLR would not really be "new" per se as has been described elsewhere. There's enough existing lands that this would not likely provide net "new" money that wouldn't be found by existing buildable land development. It certainly is not completely incremental.

To me (non-calgarian with no ties to Calgary outside the team), this is one of the most public friendly starting offers for a new arena out there. It's not a small ask though still. If I'm a Calgarian, even though I'm a Flames fan I'd want to see way more detail and less money from the public. Overall, the deal has great potential compared to many, many deals that have been done.

One huge hurdle though is the Flames' hesitancy in releasing this. Due to budget, economy, the Coyote's disaster and the Edmonton arena deal, there's more "Arena Deal Fatigue" than ever before and it'll be tough to overcome

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Plett25

I don't like domes, but I've never been in a dome with a transparent roof and lots of windows at the ends. I think this field house will be more like a greenhouse than a gymnasium.

If the windows are moveable like the new stadium in Minneapolis, this might be a better configuration than a retractable roof.

Indeed, I went and checked out wiki on the new Vikings stadium, and I was pleased to see that there are a series of windows that can be opened to let air and wind in.

Although it's not ideal, it's far, far better than being completely enclosed on hot summer days. Translucent roof is a must though for the effect.

The old BC Place was seriously BAD.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Southside

Re a retractable roof. I thought King said last night that they priced that option out at $150 million.

Lets do a little cost benefit analysis. Say the stadium hosts 10 open air events every year (football or otherwise) on nice days. Over a 40 year lifespan that would equate to 400 events. An additional $375,000 per event.

Anyone responsible for costs would walk away from that.

Not to mention these retractable roofs always seem to be maintenance heavy and an exercise in frustration to plan around weather and changing weather.

I wonder if instead of a retractable roof, they could have large windows that allow at least some fresh air into the stadium.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's particularly rich that some of this board's most ardent "conservatives" have virtually no problem with wasting tax dollars on a subsidy to a very successful private business. You want to talk about inefficiency of public spending then this is pretty much the definition.

It's at least revealing of how ideologically bankrupt their view of the world is.

city needs 2 new stadiums and some sort of field house (#1 recreation priority in their own words) we either pay for them now or pay for them later this at least gets the ball rolling.

You also have to look at the taxes coming in for such a project...what does the city take from the businesses on the property now? compare that to what they will if the land is cleaned up and the project built

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by dino7c

You also have to look at the taxes coming in for such a project...what does the city take from the businesses on the property now? compare that to what they will if the land is cleaned up and the project built

That's not the right way to look at it... you have to look at it compared to theorhetical alternative development plans not the state at present.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by flamefan74

Just a quick google would put the 3 facilities higher.

Riders Stadium $278 mil
Field House $200 mil
Edmonton arena $480 mil
Total $958 mil

It would be cheaper to build the 3 together, but I don't think the savings are nearly as much as they put it.

operation/land costs though

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

What do you think would need to be done to do it properly, and why do you think that would takes hundreds of millions?

The whole area already needs big improvements, if you somehow fix Bow Tr. for cheap everything will just bottleneck on Crowchild,14th St. 10th St. Etc. the first draft to fix Bow/Crowchild was a Billion smacks a couple of years ago. Moving bridges overpasses are the most expensive construction costs and it's likely the city would need to buy property as well.

Sorry, nothing can convince me this area for a project like this is worth the trouble. No bar district, no parking, brutal traffic is an easy thumbs down from me...it'll be a 900 million bore fest

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Parallex

That's not the right way to look at it... you have to look at it compared to theorhetical alternative development plans not the state at present.

they haven't cleaned up the land for what 70 years...if this doesn't force their hand what will?

[bob-loblaw]

I have a bunch of rambling thoughts...

1. How well/how much does the stadium and arena area have to be remediated if no one is living on it? Does it seriously require as much cleaning up as some have suggested just to be paved over? If they the built a containment system at the river which has essentially stopped this creosote from leeching under it to the north then why spend millions cleaning it up?

2. If the stadium was built separate from a field house no one would support it. A lot of people are saying that the area won't bring in people, but the field house will be a much bigger draw than we think right now. I lived in Edmonton for too many years and the Kinsmen parking lot was two-thirds full all the time (and I drove by once a day). It would actually be a bigger tourist draw than we think as well (weekends, tournaments, track meets, etc.).

3. If anyone here is going today to the presentation, ask KK about the clear roof on the arena and if that's needed or just a want. If they want to attract concerts I assume the roof will need to support their equipment. Also, where in the complex is this community rink that was mentioned?

4. The city is going on a building spree with recreation centres (Quarry Park, Seton, Royal Oak) - surely they can think of supporting one downtown.

5. Out of all the city-owned facilities that are used currently, wouldn't the Saddledome and Stadium be the most popular? Yeah the sports teams are the primary tenants, and everyone is against supporting private companies, but it's not for their exclusive use. Why wouldn't anyone want to see the Flames or Hitmen, but also Neil Diamond, U2, or Barney in a new, safe, and comfortable environment.

6. I don't use city facilities a lot, but I probably would go to the arena or stadium the most. If I could direct 5% of the property taxes I pay to something I want to support, this project would most likely be my selection.