CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[mikephoen]

That one graphic blows away anything they showed in the initial presentation.

They had one chance to win over this city with their first presentation and they completely blew it. That presentation was so bad they even managed to lose people who should have been automatic supporters.

[TheScorpion]

I guess you get what you pay for, and those graphics sure look nice. It makes the concept almost... debatable.

[Scary Eloranta]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I guess you get what you pay for, and those graphics sure look nice. It makes the concept almost... debatable.

I concur 110%

[powderjunkie]

Did anyone catch any mention in the report of current tax revenue generation from Chev City, Greyhound Station and anything else (Pumphouse Theatre, etc.)? That seems to be the only downside to getting this thing going immediately (without a concrete plan for what happens after cleanup). If they haven't already, it's time to give them notice/make sure leases end in a reasonable amount of time.

~$100M is not an insignificant amount, but it's never getting any cheaper, and it's never going away. People talk about 'reduced construction costs' all the time on big projects, and while it certainly is valid, it rarely plays out to as much savings as expected. This is a situation where I think it could legitimately be true - there is a lot of idle heavy machinery and heavy machinery ops right now, and their companies will actually be motivated to really win the contract (not saying they aren't always motivated, but in the boom cycle lots of firms could take it/leave it, so they would swing for the fence on their RFP submission).

It's a shame this report wasn't done about 2 months sooner, as this could/should have made it's way into the provincial budget. I hope it doesn't take 10-11 months to get any traction from the higher levels of govt. Unlikely that much cost will be incurred in the next year anyways, so let's get commitments in writing right now for '17/18 (easy said than done of course). Prov gov't can get the legal proceedings going right away, as we'll be lucky to see that resolved by 2030.

Anyone think there's any chance we see dirt getting hauled by summer 2018?

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I wouldn't read much into interior design beyond rough orientation, and roughly x number of seats.

How long would it take to convert from seating to fieldhouse? The financing plan needs to build in ~$5M in contingency for inevitable repairs to this nearly unprecedented retractable seating set up (anyone have examples of 10k+ retractable seats out there?).

It would be nice if it was as easy as a Jack Simpson's bleachers on steroids, but we're talking 10x the size here.


IF they want this to be a public fieldhouse, I'd like to see airport style drop-off/pick up through roads, not just service roads only. It would be great for taxi and bus/shuttle efficiency after games too.

I've been in Rogers Centre as they've converted the Baseball seating to Football seating and it didn't take very long at all.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Anyone think there's any chance we see dirt getting hauled by summer 2018?

Definitely, though only as part of a media display of CSE's plans to begin a five-year development phase to determine the right type of soil to serve as the stadium's foundation. It'll be accompanied by a five-page PowerPoint presentation titled 'DirtNEXT', which I heard is being worked on right now.

Honestly, I think there's very little chance this program is off the ground by decade's end.

[D as in David]

Where are the concessions/washrooms going to be for the side of the stadium that has retractable seats?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Where are the concessions/washrooms going to be for the side of the stadium that has retractable seats?

I believe both sides would have retractable seats. I wouldn't be too worried about those specific details yet...they are pretty standard these days, and our support of a project shouldn't hinge on if we like the concept they've designed for washrooms and concessions. It's kind of like a Cupertino city councillor asking Steve Jobs (many pages back) if Apple's new HQ will have emergency exits.

This stage is about determining the size of box they work within, where it is, and exactly which components (arena, stadium, fieldhouse) belong. I think it is very fair to question specific design and operation around retractable bleachers /shared fieldhouse facilities, as this is a lot less proven at this point.

Maybe the retractable bleachers will operate really smoothly...I just hope that would still be the case in 25 years...the maintenance and repair falling into a 'city-owned' building is a concern for me.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I guess you get what you pay for, and those graphics sure look nice. It makes the concept almost... debatable.

I get the feeling here no one here listened to their parents when they were told not to judge a book by it's cover. Judging a project off rendering alone good or bad is stupid.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I'll try and find it but I could have swore he specifically mentioned 25k at the initial revealing and specifically mentioned declining CFL attendance as why they could do that.

From the news only thread.

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Overview Numbers:

Spoiler!

[HotHotHeat]

So this is why a massive C-Train station was built in the middle of nowhere...

Spoiler!

Bronconnier was the worst.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

So this is why a massive C-Train station was built in the middle of nowhere...

Spoiler!

Bronconnier was the worst.

It really is too bad this plan was so botched and the area is as challenging/expensive as it is. It would really be an awesome location and look great.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

That one graphic blows away anything they showed in the initial presentation.

They had one chance to win over this city with their first presentation and they completely blew it. That presentation was so bad they even managed to lose people who should have been automatic supporters.

I don't disagree that the original presentation should have been better, but the concept behind the project has not changed at all since it was originally presented. Just a better rendering is changing minds?

[Senator Clay Davis]

I doubt it's changed people's minds much in terms of contributing public dollars. I doubt you could do anything to change people's minds in that regard. It just doesn't look like a rank amateur second rate facility anymore, which is certainly a start. Still has virtually no chance of getting much public money though.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

So this is why a massive C-Train station was built in the middle of nowhere...

Not to go back to the whole 'small town' thinking thing...but that's some hick-town sentiment.

[Stay Golden]

Step 1 pick a catchy phrase. Calgary Next.

Step 2 pick a site that is contaminated so land is cheap and we can delay project

Step 3 inflate the bid and try to manipulate the city for over a Billion. Keep repeating it has a field house.
Realize that site selected will not be able to build on for 10 years.

Step 4 rename the project Calgary not now.

It is pathetic that the Calgary ownership and Kking management deliberately choose a location that is severely flawed and prevents construction to even begin for years.
Then are slippery enough to say look we are hero's cleaning up the contamination.
The cost of the project will get reopened from square one in another 10 years. The numbers won't be same it is 10 years from now. The rhetoric will start all over again. The Flames know exactly what they are doing. Delaying this as long as they can.
They have Zero real intention building a new arena.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Step 1 pick a catchy phrase. Calgary Next.

Step 2 pick a site that is contaminated so land is cheap and we can delay project

Step 3 inflate the bid and try to manipulate the city for over a Billion. Keep repeating it has a field house.
Realize that site selected will not be able to build on for 10 years.

Step 4 rename the project Calgary not now.

It is pathetic that the Calgary ownership and Kking management deliberately choose a location that is severely flawed and prevents construction to even begin for years.
Then are slippery enough to say look we are hero's cleaning up the contamination.
The cost of the project will get reopened from square one in another 10 years. The numbers won't be same it is 10 years from now. The rhetoric will start all over again. The Flames know exactly what they are doing. Delaying this as long as they can.
They have Zero real intention building a new arena.

You are giving KK way too much credit as an evil genius. You even managed to work in, "1 Billion dollars!"

Why do they want to delay this? Why wouldn't they just keep their mouths shut for 10 more years?

[Bingo]

not to mention whether you like or support Calgary Next or not that's pretty disrespectful to a group of owners that funnelled countless millions into Calgary charities and projects like the Ronald McDonald hospice over the years.

Brutal.

[CroFlames]

I was warm to the idea of a mega plex from the outset. I know it's not a hugely popular opinion, but I thought having an arena-stadium-entertainmemt district would be something great for the city.

When Calgary Next was first introduced, it underwhelmed and was disappointing.

However the new renderings are showing more of what the project will look like, and I approve. I know public dollars are going into this mega structure one way or the other, and I accept that.

[Stay Golden]

That is exactly what I can't figure. Instead of opening this can of worms, why the Flames are not just saying we are putting this off and will examine this in 10 years. That would be the wise PR move you would think.
The site clearly is preventing them from building sooner than that anyways. They are not stupid people the Flames ownership know that would be the outcome.
So yes to choose that site knowing full well the delay will be years, is intentional.