CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by 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.

Don't forget funneling millions of dollars out of the province by moving to London.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Don't forget funneling millions of dollars out of the province by moving to London.

I'd be doing it to if I had the dollars to protect

[RM14]

I was listening to the city hall discussion online earlier this week. There was a brief discussion about expatiating the approvals for the clean-up. And, that wouldn't be unprecedented.

[Robbob]

Looking at the new images it pretty much tells you that CalgaryNext was nothing more then an attempt to take this public to get real discussions and action going because the behind closed door approach wasn't working.

Now that door has been opened and now the real discussions can start. Just a bunch of negotiating and politicking going on right now. I personally don't think WV is the end game, I liken it to starting really high in negotiations.

[Joborule]

I'm not sure why those seating diagrams all of the sudden gets some people more warm to the project. It gives a little bit more of an outlook on the configuration, but that's it. We could have assumed how it would look already. It's not detailed renderings of how it would actually look like on the field/rink, and in the concourse. I thought the biggest issue was with the location and feasibility? (Public use with event use at same time and such) That hasn't changed with those diagrams.

I'm not that warm to the fieldhouse/CFL stadium combo since I think it would be the less of both worlds, but the configuration does indicate that given more detailed design, perhaps it won't compromise the fieldhouse component as much, and won't feel cheap for CFL games.

My belief though is that the fieldhouse has to serve amature athletics and the public first, before professional teams. So I don't want it to be combined with the arena in downtown at all, and think it should be in foothills athletic park. It's the best spot for the city itself, and the university who would be primary tenants. The fieldhouse is budgeted for 200M, and CSEC wants to build it with CFL configuration for the same price. Something is gonna have to give for that to be the case. The question that needs to be asked is how much value do we get out of paying the assumed extra cost to build a combined fieldhouse/stadium, compared to building the two facilities separately.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'd be doing it to if I had the dollars to protect

Just so we're on the same page here that this is a business transaction.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by 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.

How exactly do you delay a project that's in negotiations only and hasn't even been agreed on or started? I don't think anyone has been led to believe that shovels would be hitting the ground for CalgaryNEXT until next decade.

[shotinthebacklund]

From the beginning I suspected many here fell into the "disappointed" column with the unveil of the CalgaryNext project because of a lack of released information and simple renderings.

There is a plethora of information yet to be released , It will come as the answers to other questions are addressed.

I take little interest in the numbers as they currently are. Its no different than a Players contract negotiation. Each side posturing to find what they both can stomach .

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by 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.

On the other side of the coin, this same group of owners who gave millions, is now asking for billions and trying to bilk people into believing a rink that they will use for private, for-profit enterprises is a "public facility." That type of posturing is worthy of disrespect.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Just so we're on the same page here that this is a business transaction.

sure ... but don't think I've every said otherwise.

I just thought it was a little disrespectful to accuse them of trying to play or sneak something by the city.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

On the other side of the coin, this same group of owners who gave millions, is now asking for billions and trying to bilk people into believing a rink that they will use for private, for-profit enterprises is a "public facility." That type of posturing is worthy of disrespect.

if that's the way you see it ... sure

Your handle suggests you may lean to over reaction though doesn't it?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

sure ... but don't think I've every said otherwise.

I just thought it was a little disrespectful to accuse them of trying to play or sneak something by the city.

Why is it disrespectful? Because they also donate to charitable causes? Someone who donates to charitable causes is beyond reproach when there is pretty significant exhibition on why someone might believe they are trying to sneak something by the city ("the city wants this", "the city has already budgeted for a field house", "the long term viability of the franchise is at stake").

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why is it disrespectful? Because they also donate to charitable causes? Someone who donates to charitable causes is beyond reproach when there is pretty significant exhibition on why someone might believe they are trying to sneak something by the city ("the city wants this", "the city has already budgeted for a field house", "the long term viability of the franchise is at stake").

You're the one that called it a business transaction so why make it so personal?

Nenshi has half baked, and has termed the arena around for only 25 years or something.

I hated the Bettman stunt and have said as much. I've been up front about thinking both sides have been brutal on the spin front.

I guess I stop short on questioning integrity and suggesting they are trying to screw over the city.

Your call to get all uppity though!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You're the one that called it a business transaction so why make it so personal?

Nenshi has half baked, and has termed the arena around for only 25 years or something.

I hated the Bettman stunt and have said as much. I've been up front about thinking both sides have been brutal on the spin front.

I guess I stop short on questioning integrity and suggesting they are trying to screw over the city.

Your call to get all uppity though!

Now you're projecting.

How is it disrespectful to call into question the tactics of the ownership group of the Calgary Flames? How is their charitable activity a mitigating factor in some of the dishonest and manipulative language they've used to try to sell this project?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Now you're projecting.

How is it disrespectful to call into question the tactics of the ownership group of the Calgary Flames? How is their charitable activity a mitigating factor in some of the dishonest and manipulative language they've used to try to sell this project?

it's my opinion.

I don't think they need to be disrespected, and I've called out both sides for spin so I'm not really advocating either side.

I think a measured non sensational response is the way to go as it is as you said a business transaction.

if you want to get all upset and call them names fill your boots!

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Now you're projecting.

How is it disrespectful to call into question the tactics of the ownership group of the Calgary Flames? How is their charitable activity a mitigating factor in some of the dishonest and manipulative language they've used to try to sell this project?

I don't understand why you care so much, you don't even live in Calgary.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I'm not sure why those seating diagrams all of the sudden gets some people more warm to the project. It gives a little bit more of an outlook on the configuration, but that's it. We could have assumed how it would look already. It's not detailed renderings of how it would actually look like on the field/rink, and in the concourse. I thought the biggest issue was with the location and feasibility? (Public use with event use at same time and such) That hasn't changed with those diagrams.

I'm not that warm to the fieldhouse/CFL stadium combo since I think it would be the less of both worlds, but the configuration does indicate that given more detailed design, perhaps it won't compromise the fieldhouse component as much, and won't feel cheap for CFL games.

My belief though is that the fieldhouse has to serve amature athletics and the public first, before professional teams. So I don't want it to be combined with the arena in downtown at all, and think it should be in foothills athletic park. It's the best spot for the city itself, and the university who would be primary tenants. The fieldhouse is budgeted for 200M, and CSEC wants to build it with CFL configuration for the same price. Something is gonna have to give for that to be the case. The question that needs to be asked is how much value do we get out of paying the assumed extra cost to build a combined fieldhouse/stadium, compared to building the two facilities separately.

I really wish the detractors would at least do their homework as the ignorant outrage gets tiresome. An outdoor stadium like Investors Field in Winnipeg cost over $200 million and this one is an indoor stadium that will be in the area of $400 million so no CSEC does not expect to build the fieldhouse with CFL configuration for $200 million as they would be willing to fund the balance of the larger cost.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I really wish the detractors would at least do their homework as the ignorant outrage gets tiresome. An outdoor stadium like Investors Field in Winnipeg cost over $200 million and this one is an indoor stadium that will be in the area of $400 million so no CSEC does not expect to build the fieldhouse with CFL configuration for $200 million as they would be willing to fund the balance of the larger cost.

I really wish you would have at least done your homework before writing this ignorant post (see how annoying it is to read that). This statement is incorrect. The balance is funded with a mix of CSEC money, CRL money and ticket tax money.

My issue with the Fieldhouse $200M is that the city gets a relatively subpar facility for the same amount of money. "Subpar" in that they a) don't control it, b) can't use it full time (football, Stamps practices), and c) access, egress and parking is further complicated by arena events. Thanks for the offer, but I'll keep my $200M and go build my own thing.

[johnnybegaudreau]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I'm not sure why those seating diagrams all of the sudden gets some people more warm to the project. It gives a little bit more of an outlook on the configuration, but that's it. We could have assumed how it would look already. It's not detailed renderings of how it would actually look like on the field/rink, and in the concourse. I thought the biggest issue was with the location and feasibility? (Public use with event use at same time and such) That hasn't changed with those diagrams.

I'm not that warm to the fieldhouse/CFL stadium combo since I think it would be the less of both worlds, but the configuration does indicate that given more detailed design, perhaps it won't compromise the fieldhouse component as much, and won't feel cheap for CFL games.

I agree insofar as to suggest that the newer configuration diagrams don't really change how I view the projects scope, location issues, or fuding mechanisms. As a tax payer I still feel very pissed off that my favourite franchises thought they could propose something like this and take me for a fool.
However, they do and I agree with you make the stadium portion seem more like a CFL compatible stadium and less "Cheap" then the first designs did.

I think the issue most people have is with the way in which the pitch was done and how amateurish it was presented from the outset. Yes, while I agree that this is just the beginning of negotiations and that is obvious. KK is pushing this thing from a PR standpoint as a public-private parntership. SO if I am as a taxpayer/event goer a partner in this thing, i'd expect to see the designs, the plans and the layouts for it in full detail at the outset. You're asking me as an event goer and as a taxpayer of the city of calgary esssentially for 440million plus a loan for an additional 250 million that is expected to be paid back over 20 years from the tax revenues generated by the area (that's not getting into the specifics that all the studies on the WV area show that sticking this megaplex on that site will take away that revenue making it hard for the city to recuperate any of the CRL tax costs). I expect to be given all the inside information, the full detail of the plans and costs to me, etc. I want to see what I am buying essentially. I'm not putting my money on a hope and a dream here. I don't build my house on the word of the sales guy that it will be spectacular. I see the plans, i goto the spec house so i can see what it might be able to look like, etc. I get all the information.

In any other facet of life if you came to me asking for 250m dollar loan and to stake you 440million in a partnership while you only put up a 200 million contribution and offer up no profits in the share of the company i would laugh you out of my office. Moreover, to do so without even presenting the full scope of the plan, or without considering the huge risks and costs with traffic egress and ingress to the project is entirely disengenous.

I support CSEC and all it's teams and I support them getting new facilities. I actually find these new graphics on the designs of the stadium to be exciting and uplifting. I do think that this would be a truly good and magnificent venue for Calgary to have. Being able to host more international events, whether that be track and field, soccer/soccer world cup at least at the womens level, rugby world cup, etc is a huge benefit to the city and it's event goers. It also opens the door for a wider more affordable range of events for people who maybe can't goto a flames or stamps game because the costs is too prohibitive.

It just would have been nice if CSEC had all their ducks in a row from the ouset. If they truly aren't trying to come in here and walk out a bunch of bandits with a bag full fo cash then prove it to us. Put forward honestly everything upfront. Let us have a conversation and then go from there. That's, however, not what they have done.

[You Need a Thneed]

The only thing in those renders that wasn't really in the original renderings shown was the existence of a practice rink.

PErsonally, I think there are too many compromises between the feildhouse and the stadium. As a field house, it will be limited by times when it's not available to the public. The stamps is just 10-11 times a year, but we are naive if we think that there isn't a goal to put other sports in there as well. Time spent reconfiguring, etc. Parking will be harder to come by and impacted anytime there an event in the arena portion as well.

As a stadium, retractable seating means that a lot of space is wasted underneath the pulled out seats - space that could be used otherwise. The site is already tight, and I would be worried that the fan's experience won't be as good as it could otherwise be, due to lack of space, and compromises made to make the stadium adaptable.

Again, I have no interest in a stadium for football games with a fixed, opaque roof. A nicely renovated McMahon sounds like a much nicer place to watch a game that sitting inside on "temporary" seating, and not much more for space than is currently available at McMahon.

I fully believe that the arena portion will be fantastic. I'm worried that a lot of money would be spent on a radium/feildhouse that wouldn't need anyone's needs very well.