[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by RM14

The flames run their business like a not for profit in that the owners do not withdrawl, but reinvest earnings.

Can anyone actually confirm this? I've always thought the same thing, but they don't really open their books...so curious to know if this is actually true.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by Flacker

The city is grossly short on indoor soccer facilities, that don't collapse when they get snowed on. The field house would be well utilized year-round.

I can't wait to hop on the c-train to take my kids to soccer (after commuting home on the c-train), the peigan industrial area looks great in comparison.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cappy

That is most businesses.

Wait, what?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flacker

The city is grossly short on indoor soccer facilities, that don't collapse when they get snowed on. The field house would be well utilized year-round.

Yeah, but is this more than a single field? Is there a soccer field that isn't the Stamps practice/game field in this facility?

For 200 million bucks I'm sure they could build a pretty sweet athletic facility that didn't have room for 30,000 (or more) spectators.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Because the Flames ownership just took a huge dump on the entire cities head. This dumpster fire of a "proposal" has everyone in a pissy mood. As is, I hope this proposal doesn't even see the bottom of a trash bin. It deserves to be incinerated. This proposal tries to please everyone by offering everything, in reality it pleases no one because everything is mediocre, underwhelming, and flat out amateur. That fieldhouse/stadium takes the cake. I can't imagine sitting in that convention centre gymnasium on a hot sunny labour day. I'd rather keep the Saddledome and McMahon for the next two decades if it means aborting this mess. The Flames should be building two separate facilities that are specific for its use. An indoor arena that hosts hockey, lacrosse, and concerts, and a stadium for CFL and soccer.

Dude, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel...

Totally wrong, just look at the poll at the top of the page, but hey, lets not let facts get in the way. As for seperate stadium and arena, are you offering to foot the difference in price? Ya, didn't think so.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, but is this more than a single field? Is there a soccer field that isn't the Stamps practice/game field in this facility?

For 200 million bucks I'm sure they could build a pretty sweet athletic facility that didn't have room for 30,000 (or more) spectators.

With the seats rolled back, I would hope for as versatile of design as possible. If it is a single pitch when converted to public use mode, I would be very surprised.

[EldrickOnIce]

Concordia University economics professor Moshe Lander was on CBC news at 6 tonight. I consider him to be one of the foremost pro sports economics experts; he is brilliant.

He is less than enamoured with the proposal, mostly on the basis of how incomplete it is (considering cleanup costs, etc), but likens it very closely to the Edmonton arena deal.
Lander starts about 10 minutes - preceded by King.

http://www.cbc.ca/newsatsixcalgary/

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Dude, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel...

Totally wrong, just look at the poll at the top of the page, but hey, lets not let facts get in the way. As for seperate stadium and arena, are you offering to foot the difference in price? Ya, didn't think so.

Less than 40% of members on a Flames message board think this project should be built as proposed.

Not exactly the strongest argument.

[Sainters7]

Love the new rink design, love the placement of it, HATE the fact they wanna put a dome on the Stamps field. I really, really hope that changes as this goes forward. I'd even be for them keeping the dump that is McMahon if that's the lone alternative.


Posted from Calgarypuck.com App for Android

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Less than 40% of members on a Flames message board think this project should be built as proposed.

Not exactly the strongest argument.

To be fair that poll is total bonkers, it's kinda crazy with the options. I think I voted "I like the idea but I'm a little hungry and it's too early for dinner, this Oh Henry will do for now".

[Eagle Eye]

I am just curious (and I may have missed this in the thread somewhere), but is there any sort of timeline, or contingency plans discussed? It would be nice to know what are the next steps, and maybe what each decision point is. For example, the Flames wont get an architect to design the actual buildings/area unless the city confirms they agree with the financing, or the plans are already in the works and this was just a prelim view.

Or are we just going to be sitting here waiting like the last thread?

I am not wondering about how long it takes for construction once approved as Ken King did mention that, more just curious what is next.

Sounds to me like where we are is a long way away from anything actually concrete, which is very understandable based on the circumstances and people involved.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

To be fair that poll is total bonkers, it's kinda crazy with the options. I think I voted "I like the idea but I'm a little hungry and it's too early for dinner, this Oh Henry will do for now".

Plus I think it adds up to around 200%, so yeah.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Less than 40% of members on a Flames message board think this project should be built as proposed.

Not exactly the strongest argument.

The poll was poorly done. Can't conclude from it anything frankly.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Why are people so pissy in this thread?

Because people who think that everyone is out to screw them over are both extremely miserable and extremely vocal.

[Violator]

With the west village having lots of soil contamination why hasn't the city been cleaning it up over the years?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Dude, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel...

Totally wrong, just look at the poll at the top of the page, but hey, lets not let facts get in the way. As for seperate stadium and arena, are you offering to foot the difference in price? Ya, didn't think so.

Hah, that's funny. You could also say.....

Directed at flames.

"As for anew stadium and Arena, are you offering to foot the price? Ya, didn't think so"

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Concordia University economics professor Moshe Lander was on CBC news at 6 tonight. I consider him to be one of the foremost pro sports economics experts; he is brilliant.

He is less than enamoured with the proposal, mostly on the basis of how incomplete it is (considering cleanup costs, etc), but likens it very closely to the Edmonton arena deal.
Lander starts about 10 minutes - preceded by King.

http://www.cbc.ca/newsatsixcalgary/

I've showed several times that it's very different than the Edmonton model in both delivery and in structure. I'm not sure how this guy is brilliant after saying that.

1) The Calgary arena deal is structured around an environmental liability.

2) The Calgary arena is city owned

3) The Calgary arena is a public facility

4) The Calgary arena is a multi-sport facility

The only thing the two have in common is a CRL and ticket tax. No question King waited until the Oilers deal got made before he finalized the financial proposal

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Violator

With the west village having lots of soil contamination why hasn't the city been cleaning it up over the years?

Because no level of government (Federal, Provincial, or City) wanted to touch it.

Legally the contamination is the province's responsibility unless the city starts construction on the land, then it becomes the city's problem.

They have spent so money to prevent the contamination from spreading into the river.

[hockey.modern]

Originally Posted by getbak

I may have missed it being posted in this thread, but here's a radio interview with Rob Kerr and Ken King: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/t...s-calgarynext/

Here is a summary of the interview,

- CalgaryNEXT is just the vision of what they want to create. This is just the beginning of what we want it to be. In terms of the final details of the designs in each facility, that still has a long ways to go.

- Project will take 3 years, plus and extra two maybe. With each problem you might be looking at an extra 6 months and so on.

- Worked with people about the possibility of combining the event center with a convention center. decided not to.

- Considered to take on renovation to McMahon.

- The Fieldhouse works because the Calgary Stampeders will only play roughly 10 games there.

- If you do everything separate, you cause more problems with parking and infrastructure.

- It's a very nice fit to integrate amateur sports and professional together.

- discussed some other plans that was much crazy during early stages

- If you want to be serious about it, you have to look at the vision first then do all the details in the next stage.

- Hopes the funding won't change

- The next step is, authorization from province, traffic studies (parking)

- No plan B as the creates a competition from the two plans

- To a certain degree, feedback from the consumers may change what the vision is

- The gift is having a clean site to work with. Wants to help with the city, province and federal fix the problems with creosote.

- Does not know how much it will cost to clean it up.

- KK says the city Councillors loves the project but they need to help find the money.

- The city will own the facility's

- City owns it but ownership will run it

- Ownership will put $450M into it.

- Vision opens Olympic bid if anyone was interested

- Surprised that no one has asked why it is called an event center and not hockey rink

[SebC]

A few points:

- If "there is no Plan B" for Ken King, then the city has a strong negotiating position. I agree that this is the best location for the Stamps (Flames could occupy less valuable but still central land in Victoria Park). It's not the best use of the land for the city. So, if it's worth it to the Stamps but not the city, the city should be able to get a good deal.

- While I'd like to see Bow Trail re-aligned, if there's going to be an arena complex, I can't see a good way to make re-alignment work. If you push westbound up against eastbound, you push the stadiums closer to the waterfront and run into shadowing problems. The residential community to the west of the stadiums still has unfettered access, so maybe despite being less than ideal, no re-alignment is indeed the best solution.

===============================

Originally Posted by shermanator

Cities everywhere are tearing down their indoor multisport stadiums, and Calgary wants to build one? It just seems like backwards thinking, not forward thinking.

I'm not aware of this phenomenon, but perhaps the problem lies with the execution/age of the facilities being torn down, and is not inherent to "indoor multisport stadiums"?

Would like to hear more from you about this. What's being torn down? Where? Why? How does it apply to the CalgaryNext?