[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by dino7c

my problem is with the ticket tax being skewed as being public money...the majority of it is being generated by the Flames

concerns on the loan are valid but really a private lender would do that its not like they wouldn't make the money back

There's no guarantee they will make money back.

[Tinordi]

I don't want to hang Muta out to dry, just want to know what was guiding the decision making on the design because it looks very pedestrian and retrograde.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by dino7c

my problem is with the ticket tax being skewed as being public money...the majority of it is being generated by the Flames

concerns on the loan are valid but really a private lender would do that its not like they wouldn't make the money back

Again big bad Murray Edwards could take his 200M and put it in a MUCH better investment without the public outcry if all he was after was profit

If a private lender would do that, then let the private lender do that and have the ownership guarantee the loan. Leave the city out of it.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I don't want to hang Muta out to dry, just want to know what was guiding the decision making on the design because it looks very pedestrian and retrograde.

What design?

The only design finalized is the sloped roof to keep a shadow off the river. After that we know nothing.

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by RW99

If you haven't seen it already: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...to-accommodate

Here's an idea - use the stampede for parking and open up the free zone to Victoria Park!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Would love to see Muta show up to defend some of the design decisions which look very questionable at the point.

The development plan is honestly an even bigger roadblock than the funding. Downtown land opens up for development very rarely so you really need to maximize it for both the development and public benefit perspective. What this plan shows is that it's going to orphan the riverfront into a fringe space cut off from the rest of the public space. This is simply not allowed. Major parts of the actual design and development should be going back to the drawing board. It's like 1993 called and submitted it's design. Simply not suitable by current urban design principles.

A. Not really downtown.
B. It's not opening up for development without this plan.
C. Fringe space? versus car dealerships and Greyhound station?
D. There are ways which can get around the "cutting off" which you criticize. Underpasses (with malls) are an example.
E. Don't put an apostrophe there. It's its.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

What design?

The only design finalized is the sloped roof to keep a shadow off the river. After that we know nothing.

Ok building design is of trivial concern. The land use plan is what will make or break the entire development and right now it looks very suspect.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Ok building design is of trivial concern. The land use plan is what will make or break the entire development and right now it looks very suspect.

Wasn't Muta talking about arena design though, Tinordi?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

There's no guarantee they will make money back.

its a very safe bet, are you suggesting people will stop going to concerts and sporting events in large numbers?

[Tinordi]

Sure maybe, in my experience with these things the design teams aren't siloed. Building architects work with landscape architects who work with urban planners and civil engineers in an integrated design process.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

If a private lender would do that, then let the private lender do that and have the ownership guarantee the loan. Leave the city out of it.

that is likely how it goes down, the plan is not set in stone

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Sure maybe, in my experience with these things the design teams aren't siloed. Building architects work with landscape architects who work with urban planners and civil engineers in an integrated design process.

Yeah but literally none of that looked even close to being finalized or released to the public.

What press conference did some of you watch?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by dino7c

that is likely how it goes down, the plan is not set in stone

Which is fine. But frankly, if the flames were going to front that cash themselves they would have thrown it in to the $200 million. It's not like they're going to write a cheque for the $200 million, they'll likely finance that too.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Wha?

Why would taxpayers have still paid?

Big leap of logic there.

Not anymore of a leap of logic than if there was no CRL that the Flames would have asked for less taxpayer money.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Yeah but literally none of that looked even close to being finalized or released to the public.

What press conference did some of you watch?

The conference that showed the land use plan...

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

John Bender @johnw_bender
Estimates to refurbish the saddledome $325 M #yyc #CalgaryNEXT

If true, why aren't the Flames pursuing this? 325mil to refurbish the Dome when Ownership already has 200mil to throw at the project seems much more attractive to me as taxpayer (no matter how much I like the combined facilities) than the 890mil + site remediation plan we were just pitched. The other 125mil is only half of the current proposed ticket tax. We wouldn't get the fieldhouse but from what I have read, the City hasn't funded it as of now anyway.

Am I missing something here, or is CSE just asking (unnecessarily) for a whack of public money it really doesn't need?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

If true, why aren't the Flames pursuing this? 325mil to refurbish the Dome when Ownership already has 200mil to throw at the project seems much more attractive to me as taxpayer (no matter how much I like the combined facilities) than the 890mil + site remediation plan we were just pitched. The other 125mil is only half of the current proposed ticket tax. We wouldn't get the fieldhouse but from what I have read, the City hasn't funded it as of now anyway.

Am I missing something here, or is CSE just asking (unnecessarily) for a whack of public money it really doesn't need?

Bingo.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by dino7c

its a very safe bet, are you suggesting people will stop going to concerts and sporting events in large numbers?

If it's a very safe bet why don't the Flames ownership take the risk?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

If true, why aren't the Flames pursuing this? 325mil to refurbish the Dome when Ownership already has 200mil to throw at the project seems much more attractive to me as taxpayer (no matter how much I like the combined facilities) than the 890mil + site remediation plan we were just pitched. The other 125mil is only half of the current proposed ticket tax. We wouldn't get the fieldhouse but from what I have read, the City hasn't funded it as of now anyway.

Am I missing something here, or is CSE just asking (unnecessarily) for a whack of public money it really doesn't need?

It depends on what the $325 mil refurbishment entails. How long does it extend the operational life of the Saddledome as an NHL arena and events center?

It may seem attractive from a $ perspective, but until you know the full details it is impossible to compare.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

If true, why aren't the Flames pursuing this? 325mil to refurbish the Dome when Ownership already has 200mil to throw at the project seems much more attractive to me as taxpayer (no matter how much I like the combined facilities) than the 890mil + site remediation plan we were just pitched. The other 125mil is only half of the current proposed ticket tax. We wouldn't get the fieldhouse but from what I have read, the City hasn't funded it as of now anyway.

Am I missing something here, or is CSE just asking (unnecessarily) for a whack of public money it really doesn't need?

I have a somewhat irrational love for the dome and will be sad when it's gone but if I'm the ownership group I would want an updated building to allow for better revenue streams. It's already been renovated multiple times but there's no amount of refurbishing that will drag the dome into modernity. Since the stampeders are somewhat needing of a new building as well it makes sense to try and tackle both issues from an economies of scale perspective.

I thought the roll out yesterday was a massive disappointment, was never a KK fan from interactions I've had with him in the past and this pretty much seals my distaste for him.