[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

One comment on Kent's article got my attention



Has anyone heard anything similar?

Kind of makes sense though as there were lots of inconsistencies in the fieldhouse renderings from one to another. Doesn't look like a lot of real engineering design was incorporated. IMO it was a bit of a mistake as I think the announcement would have benefitted more from polished renderings as the interior renderings of both facilities looked like a bit of a letdown. I know they are just renderings but something a bit more impressive would have gone a long way to making the price more palpable.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So too was the CT Centre in Ottawa - though the Province of Ontario loaned the team $27 million.

...

(This obviously looks at the arenas themselves, and not related projects of upgraded or relocated roadways, etc.)

The $27 million that the Senators corporation borrowed was to finance the interchange on the 417 that the Ontario Municipal Board saddled the owners with in order to approve their application (among other requirements). It was quite an ugly fight at the time - there were people deliriously opposed to the arena, even though it was being built in what was at the time the far west end of the City.

The interchange in question is here, and has since been expanded by the province.

So compare this to the Flames proposal - where the land is provided, cleaned and any infrastructure improvements all paid by the city.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This is either sarcasm, or serious. If serious, that might be the worst reason to build anything, ever.

There is inherent pressure there to keep up to a league standard of quality. If you can get a drastically better experience at every other CFL stadium than Calgary, what do you do, shrug your shoulders and say well we're not dumb suckers like those guys?

[Simanium]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

How so? Calgary has one of the worst barns in the league and still has one of the highest average attendances. That's my point, that league doesn't need subsidy. The low cost of operation keeps the ticket prices down.

Explain to me why the Stampeders need a stadium beyond "They would like one". McMahon has been dated for decades, I'm not sure why this has changed.

Because Calgary has the worst stadium in the league, is one of the reasons we should replace it. It's pretty embarrassing that Calgary has the highest household income in the country, and the lowest taxes in the country, and has the worst facility in the league. Also, wouldn't you agree that having a facility that can be used year round by amateur athletes, be better than a facility that is used 20 times a year for the Stamps/Dinos. Because the city itself has already stated we want a fieldhouse.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by saillias

There is inherent pressure there to keep up to a league standard of quality. If you can get a drastically better experience at every other CFL stadium than Calgary, what do you do, shrug your shoulders and say well we're not dumb suckers like those guys?

Yes?

[Robbob]

I do think the numbers need to be tweaked a bit but I am for the use of spending for a couple reasons. I think the city will get their monies worth for the 200M for the field house in a project like this. The big sticking point right now is not know the scope of the costs for the clean up and infrastructure on the WV. I think if that cost is reasonable then it is worth it for the city. This is where I think more information is needed.

I also think that relocating the stamps downtown frees up some very valuable land on the former McMahon site. Although it wouldn't be part of the CRL, I think it would generate a decent chunk of tax revenue (if they decide to develop a portion for residential/commercial) that could help offset the loss of revenue in the CRL area.

I may get flamed for this, but I give the Flames a little more leeway because of the community initiatives they have with the Flames foundation. I think the city as a whole benefits for the work they do within the community. When people talk about civic pride this is one of the pluses that is associated with having a the groups under the umbrella of the CSEC.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Yes?

I chalk up guys like you to the "I don't like it and I don't care what you say" group that will always front and center in these types of debates. Nothing anyone says will change your opinion. That's fine but your posts aren't swaying me in your direction nor likely others.

[trew]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

When the Flames purchased the Stampeders I highly doubt they had it in mind that they would continue to play in McMahon stadium forever. You can make a case the stadium/fieldhouse is higher priority than a new arena as there's more in that facility for average Calgarians than the arena which is more a Flames facility.

The current plan is to build the fieldhouse on university lands next to McMahon Stadium. They could either continue with these plans, or select a different site, and build it on whatever time frame city budgeting allows.

I just don't think that it makes sense to build it smack dab in the middle of the West Village.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Simanium

Because Calgary has the worst stadium in the league, is one of the reasons we should replace it. It's pretty embarrassing that Calgary has the highest household income in the country, and the lowest taxes in the country, and has the worst facility in the league. Also, wouldn't you agree that having a facility that can be used year round by amateur athletes, be better than a facility that is used 20 times a year for the Stamps/Dinos. Because the city itself has already stated we want a fieldhouse.

Because Calgary has the worst stadium in the league, is one of the reasons we should replace it. It's pretty embarrassing that Calgary has richest ownership group in the league (pre-Bell/Tannenbaum) and has the worst facility in the league.




Totally fine with the fieldhouse being built. That's 200 million that's been earmarked but the city has no funding for it, so why are we going to let the flames force our hands on this?

[trew]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I also think that relocating the stamps downtown frees up some very valuable land on the former McMahon site. Although it wouldn't be part of the CRL, I think it would generate a decent chunk of tax revenue (if they decide to develop a portion for residential/commercial) that could help offset the loss of revenue in the CRL area.

The problem is that the CRL is tied to the region where the development occurs, and the McMahon lands belongs to the university and not the city.

Selling the lands for profit and development isn't really consistent with the spirit of a university land endowment, so the prospect of taxes being raised off of this land are remote.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I chalk up guys like you to the "I don't like it and I don't care what you say" group that will always front and center in these types of debates. Nothing anyone says will change your opinion. That's fine but your posts aren't swaying me in your direction nor likely others.

Pot, meet kettle.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I chalk up guys like you to the "I don't like it and I don't care what you say" group that will always front and center in these types of debates. Nothing anyone says will change your opinion. That's fine but your posts aren't swaying me in your direction nor likely others.

This is like 90% of CP, including this guy ^ who is accusing you of hypocrisy.

People in general have a hard time changing their opinion in the face of new information or different perspectives.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

One comment on Kent's article got my attention

If that's true, that's pretty bush-league. I thought only dim-witted Sun readers thought that asking students to design infrastructure was a good idea. Especially when you consider that they are at a phase where you need to sell the big idea...having it look amazing would make a lot of people forget about pesky things like financing.

It's funny though, clearly there was some work being along the way by legit Architecture firms (otherwise guys like Muta wouldn't have mentioned anything). I'm curious why we didn't see their work. A legit firm could've whipped up conceptual renderings in fairly short order.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by trew

The problem is that the CRL is tied to the region where the development occurs, and the McMahon lands belongs to the university and not the city.

Selling the lands for profit and development isn't really consistent with the spirit of a university land endowment, so the prospect of taxes being raised off of this land are remote.

Fair enough. Maybe the foothills stadium land. Is that being used for anything now?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by heep223

When they start charging $300/ticket to go to the games, and only wealthy fans or corporations can afford it, you'll whine about that too.

So the reason we have 'affordable' $120 tickets to NHL games is because government support of pro sports teams keep prices that low as a public service?

It is quite comical for so many people who are passionate advocates of the red-blooded free market just shrugging off the necessity of spending hundreds of millions of public dollars to keep a private business viable.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if every jurisdiction at every level of government in North America made a binding pledge not to subsidize the construction of sports arenas. If we just left pro sports up to the market. Where would the money come from? Would prices increase? Would the salaries of the athletes decrease? Would owners get more creative with utilizing their sports facilities? Would we see fewer teams? Would the whole system simply collapse?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So the reason we have 'affordable' $120 tickets to NHL games is because government support of pro sports teams keep prices that low as a public service?

It is quite comical for so many people who are passionate advocates of the red-blooded free market just shrugging off the necessity of spending hundreds of millions of public dollars to keep a private business viable.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if every jurisdiction at every level of government in North America made a binding pledge not to subsidize the construction of sports arenas. If we just left pro sports up to the market. Where would the money come from? Would prices increase? Would the salaries of the athletes decrease? Would owners get more creative with utilizing their sports facilities? Would we see fewer teams? Would the whole system simply collapse?

I wish you could do this.

However, theres a lot more people like this than there are rational people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UfOfAvNVJU

[FNL]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Fair enough. Maybe the foothills stadium land. Is that being used for anything now?

Yes. Youth and amateur baseball (including U of C) almost every day in spring/summer...lots in the fall, too.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by saillias

There is inherent pressure there to keep up to a league standard of quality. If you can get a drastically better experience at every other CFL stadium than Calgary, what do you do, shrug your shoulders and say well we're not dumb suckers like those guys?

the problem with this thinking is that it's the same thinking that gets people in trouble personally in their finances:

Oh jim bought a new car. It's amazing. I wish my car was that good. Well....mine is older. It does have less features. I WOULD really like a new one. Sure I'll get it!

The question should be "do i NEED it?" and "can I justify/afford it?"

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Benched

the problem with this thinking is that it's the same thinking that gets people in trouble personally in their finances:

Oh jim bought a new car. It's amazing. I wish my car was that good. Well....mine is older. It does have less features. I WOULD really like a new one. Sure I'll get it!

The question should be "do i NEED it?" and "can I justify/afford it?"

Not the same because your car isn't an entertainment venue.

If we're not willing to pony up for CFL football, it should be questioned if we continue to have CFL football long term.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by saillias

Not the same because your car isn't an entertainment venue.

If we're not willing to pony up for CFL football, it should be questioned if we continue to have CFL football long term.

Something inherently wrong with this statement.

I guess I'm in the 'they're not a public service' camp. Which maybe is the disconnect going on between the 2 camps. CFL is not a service or something inherently beneficial to our society. I love it...doesn't mean that it falls in that camp. Hence, why are we 'ponying up' to 'save it'.


If it's a business, which I think it is...then it needs to be run like a business. Stand on it's own merits, or fold.