CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Just heard KK on the fan. Can't say I share the feelings of a great number of CPers who think he's a moron in all of this. I thought he came off fine and it seems to me that the Flames are working to find a solution that is beneficial for themselves and the city. Sounds also like they aren't adversary's in this, just taking part in a public negotiation to find a mutually agreeable solution.

Guess I'm also one of the few that doesn't want a new building that bad. More concerned about losing concerts than the Flames game experience. Not looking forward to a 30% increase in ticket prices. McMahon is the more pressing need. This whole Oiler envy thing is stupid. I don't care what that joke of a franchise does or has.

[HotHotHeat]

Has King ever addressed why McMahon being so terrible is the city's problem? Or why taking $200 from the city to 'share' the stadium is the only way the Stampeders get a new arena? If football isn't profitable enough to run a construct a new stadium, either fix the business or operate as best you can in the current one, like a normal company.

King very slowly started to come off his 'CalgaryNEXT' or bust during that interview. Looks like he'll try to make McMahon sucking the centre piece now, so they can salvage free money for it.

New arena only project will probably be announced in the fall.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

King on 960 right now. Kind of reiterated what Francis wrote in that they are still committed to CalgaryNEXT. Kind of laughed about renovating McMahon saying they had already looked at that and it's simply not possible but if the city thinks it's possible he would love to see how they think it can be done. The fact the city thinks McMahon can be renovated is all you need to know that the city hasn't done all it's homework.

Considering how poorly he's handled this to this point he should probably present the reasons that it can't be done instead of just laughing off suggestions.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The airport tunnel cost included financing costs. Also, your old analysis of the airport tunnel isn't correct either. The interchanges were not required under the tunnel option, which is why they weren't included. After the fact, this has been proven to be true, and saved a bunch of money, when the city studied the possibility of downgrading Metis Trail, which was made possible by the network that the tunnel provided.

It talks about the financing costs, but the final numbers presented does not include financing costs. It's says right in the report:

The short and long term cost projections (not including financing charges) for the three options are:

The interchanges are required, unless we end Airport Trail as it is today keep the tunnel going nowhere. The city is not allowed to extend Airport Trail to Metis trail unless 2 interchanges are built, it's in the contract with the Airport. Option 1 and 2 included all these infrastructure costs, while Option 3 didn't, leading a reader skimming the report to think that it's cheap and the way to go. It gives a sense of saving money because it's only a small portion of a total project, which isn't the case for the other options. It was a loaded analysis to push for Option 3.

The city analysis of CalgaryNEXT basically piles every single cost in there, similar to Option 1 and 2 of the Airport Tunnel analysis, but throw in financing costs as well. Again, I'm not saying CalgaryNEXT is a sound idea in its current location and costs, but the city report is a little biased compared to other cost analysis reports for major city projects.

BTW - One thing about the CRL, it's actually not the area that's paying for it, it's a subsidized tax. Property tax in a CRL zone (such as East Village) is the same regardless if there's a CRL or not. The taxes just gets diverted as CRL revenue, meaning they get a tax break on property taxes, and that break goes into the CRL. That tax break is funded by tax payers not in the CRL, or everyone else in the city.

[Madman]

Here's the full KK interview for those that missed it.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/boomer-m...garynext-w-bw/

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

Considering how poorly he's handled this to this point he should probably present the reasons that it can't be done instead of just laughing off suggestions.

I believe the Stamps reviewed the feasibility of a McMahon upgrade in 2012 or something like that and it wasn't deemed feasible which is how the whole field house concept was born. He's right to counter and ask the city how they think it can be done as its like they just threw it out there before investigating how exactly you go about feasibly renovating a 50 year old concrete monster that is McMahon.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

King on 960 right now. Kind of reiterated what Francis wrote in that they are still committed to CalgaryNEXT. Kind of laughed about renovating McMahon saying they had already looked at that and it's simply not possible but if the city thinks it's possible he would love to see how they think it can be done. The fact the city thinks McMahon can be renovated is all you need to know that the city hasn't done all it's homework.

I love the "...hasn't done all its homework" comment because the city turned around a review in 6 months of something that has been in planning stages for 10 years.

No doubt they haven't hired a consultant to complete a "renovation feasibility study" of McMahon. Do the Flames want the city to spend a year or more re-confirming all of their ideas before getting back to them with their comments?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

I love the "...hasn't done all its homework" comment because the city turned around a review in 6 months of something that has been in planning stages for 10 years.

No doubt they haven't hired a consultant to complete a "renovation feasibility study" of McMahon. Do the Flames want the city to spend a year or more re-confirming all of their ideas before getting back to them with their comments?

Then why throw that out there unless they are just throwing stuff against the wall in hopes it sticks which sounds like exactly what the intent was on several of it's findings?

Also maybe the "I don't want my taxes going to millionaire" crusaders should for a moment ask themselves why the city has totally ignored the issue of toxic soil in the West Village until CalgaryNEXT put it into focus. A rail tanker car full of contaminated ground water seeps into the river daily but the city was fine with keeping that little issue under the rug. The city was supposed to maintain the containment wall and it's been found that the functionality of the wall is less than the design and if not for a study they would have never reported it. If anything CalgaryNEXT has at least put this issue at the forefront and even if the project never comes to fruition at the very least I would hope the city treats the cleanup a little more seriously.

[Stay Golden]

Boohoo Calgary Flames the ownership has deep resources but yet they think the city etc should foot 3/4 of their bill.
Kking is such a blowhard I can't stomach listening to him on any subject. Hearing him blather a mound of nothingness on the Calgary next project is nauseating.
The ownership should rather rename their "next" project to the we will build a new arena when we don't have to pay for it plan. Oh BTW here is our invoice.
Edward's should be embarrassed.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by you need a thneed

the city's reports say that the city financing the "ticket tax" would cost the city $84 million.

Originally Posted by you need a thneed

the city says a full modernization of mcmahon would cost $69 to $89 million.

lol

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Then why throw that out there unless they are just throwing stuff against the wall in hopes it sticks which sounds like exactly what the intent was on several of it's findings?

Also maybe the "I don't want my taxes going to millionaire" crusaders should for a moment ask themselves why the city has totally ignored the issue of toxic soil in the West Village until CalgaryNEXT put it into focus. A rail tanker car full of contaminated ground water seeps into the river daily but the city was fine with keeping that little issue under the rug. The city was supposed to maintain the containment wall and it's been found that the functionality of the wall is less than the design and if not for a study they would have never reported it. If anything CalgaryNEXT has at least put this issue at the forefront and even if the project never comes to fruition at the very least I would hope the city treats the cleanup a little more seriously.

Probably because the person writing the report was under an intense deadline and just made an assumption.

----

Why the city as ignored the issue of the toxic soil in the West Village?:

They have been actively trying to contain it for decades. The truth is cleaning up contaminated sites, without digging the entire thing up from the start, is shockingly expensive and harder than it looks. I recognize the city probably doesn't want it to be blasted from the roof tops that they've spent gobs of money trying and failing to contain the contamination, but damn the city got the raw end of the deal with that site. The original owners (well, the company that now owns those original assets) should be footing the bill for the cleanup. I don't know why they are not, as I was always taught Canada has very clear "polluter pays" laws. As a taxpayer in this city, I don't want to pay for the cleanup of something the city didn't pollute. I don't expect the Flames feel any differently either.

Asking the city to finally remove the source is reasonable, but will come at a large cost that will cause a big disturbance in the area. If there's enough public support, the city should probably bite the bullet and do it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I believe the Stamps reviewed the feasibility of a McMahon upgrade in 2012 or something like that and it wasn't deemed feasible which is how the whole field house concept was born. He's right to counter and ask the city how they think it can be done as its like they just threw it out there before investigating how exactly you go about feasibly renovating a 50 year old concrete monster that is McMahon.

That's great. Present that reasoning. Show why they came to the conclusion that it's "not possible". The latitude that King has for being dismissive of anything at this point is gone. He needs to show data.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Boohoo Calgary Flames the ownership has deep resources but yet they think the city etc should foot 3/4 of their bill.
Kking is such a blowhard I can't stomach listening to him on any subject. Hearing him blather a mound of nothingness on the Calgary next project is nauseating.
The ownership should rather rename their "next" project to the we will build a new arena when we don't have to pay for it plan. Oh BTW here is our invoice.
Edward's should be embarrassed.

No they don't.

*Edwards. Just because there is an "s" in something, does not necessarily make it possessive. Unless you are talking about some Edward fellow, then you're missing whatever this Edward fellow is possessing.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Just heard KK on the fan. Can't say I share the feelings of a great number of CPers who think he's a moron in all of this. I thought he came off fine and it seems to me that the Flames are working to find a solution that is beneficial for themselves and the city. Sounds also like they aren't adversary's in this, just taking part in a public negotiation to find a mutually agreeable solution.

Guess I'm also one of the few that doesn't want a new building that bad. More concerned about losing concerts than the Flames game experience. Not looking forward to a 30% increase in ticket prices. McMahon is the more pressing need. This whole Oiler envy thing is stupid. I don't care what that joke of a franchise does or has.

How is McMahon a more pressing need though? It gets used 10 times a year. Building a new stadium for 10 semi-pro football games a year is ridiculous. I'm a big Stamps fan and would welcome a new stadium, but there's no real business case for it.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

How is McMahon a more pressing need though? It gets used 10 times a year. Building a new stadium for 10 semi-pro football games a year is ridiculous. I'm a big Stamps fan and would welcome a new stadium, but there's no real business case for it.

Semi pro? lol.

This is such a tired argument. It gets used more than 10 times a year. Fact of the matter is that in its current form, McMahon is not viable for anything. It is a total dump.

Also I'm not sure why you're quoting me if you think replacing McMahon is not needed considering my other post said replacing McMahon isn't ideal.

[Torture]

Pretty hypocritical for Ken King to accuse the city of not doing their homework. City puts out a detailed report of the costs and their analysis of the project, Ken King gives a Powerpoint and a crappy render.

[Flash Walken]

For me, from the position of the ownership group, the biggest mis-step by King here is not the presentation etc, it's mis-judging the political and economic environment for this proposal.

If this has been in the works for a decade, you couldn't have possibly timed this any worse.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by Torture

Pretty hypocritical for Ken King to accuse the city of not doing their homework. City puts out a detailed report of the costs and their analysis of the project, Ken King gives a Powerpoint and a crappy render.

I was just coming here to say that. For a project that was supposedly under development for years that crappy arena render was pathetic. I've put together more detailed design renders in less time.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

I was just coming here to say that. For a project that was supposedly under development for years that crappy arena render was pathetic. I've put together more detailed design renders in less time.

So you are saying a glitzy PowerPoint presentation would have been all took to sell the project? At the end of the day wether the renders were hand sketched or produced by Pixar it has zero relevance on the project funding and feasability. That argument is starting to get really old and tired.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Madman

Here's the full KK interview for those that missed it.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/boomer-m...garynext-w-bw/

He was on CBC Eye Opener too.

Interview is not up yet, but he admitted to now being open to a Plan B.

He said the Next Project only comprises 10% of the contaminated area.

http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/