CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Having the fieldhouse be excavated several meters below grade next to a river that sometimes likes to Flood doesn't seem like a very future proof plan.

I know that apparently that part of the river doesn't appear to flood significantly, but I can't help but notice how the city component happens to be the part below grade.

I presume the fieldhouse floor and the CFL floor at the same thing, just the seats are pulled in for the fieldhouse.

I'm sure its done somewhere - but curious to how well that will work. The seats that pull in and out will have to have seams and spots so they can fold into a smaller area, which leads to spills and fun stuff slipping through to the fieldhouse track. Will be a fair bit of maintenance to keep that part up to par.

[Frequitude]

The math still sucks or is fishy.

1) Saying infrastructure costs will be $112M instead of $327M. I'll take the city's word on infrastructure costs over a hockey team's. I mean, unless the Flames want to guarantee anything over $112M (tongue in cheek).

2) Remediation magically dropping from $140M to $90M. Based on what? Wasn't the city's original estimate based on a properly done report?

3) Financing costs being $214M instead of $391M. Willing to believe this one but I want to see the explanation.

4) Sale of cleaned up land being $310M+. The city would be able to sell this eventually, so it is a time value of money thing. $310M now vs $310M later does have a financial benefit, but it is not the total amount. It's not like $310M is magically appearing out of thin air. It is just moving forward in time. To say otherwise is an outright lie at worst, or intentionally misleading at best.

5) CRL of $435M being an inflow. That's a complete joke. Yes it is an inflow now, but it comes with less money later because future tax revenues are used to pay it off. It's not like $435M is magically appearing out of thin air. It is being borrowed at the expense of future money. Again, it is probably a net positive inflow in terms of NPV but the way they put that is an outright lie at worst, or intentionally misleading at best.

[YYC in LAX]

From CalgaryHerald.com

Some renderings look like grass roofs or something? Seems cool IMO.

There are other new renderings at Calgary Herald

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

From CalgaryHerald.com

Some renderings look like grass roofs or something? Seems cool IMO.

There are other new renderings at Calgary Herald

I think that render shows an Ogopogo in the Bow

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

The math still sucks or is fishy.

1) Saying infrastructure costs will be $112M instead of $327M. I'll take the city's word on infrastructure costs over a hockey team's. I mean, unless the Flames want to guarantee anything over $112M (tongue in cheek).

2) Remediation magically dropping from $140M to $90M. Based on what? Wasn't the city's original estimate based on a properly done report?

From what I can recall

1) The cities report infrastructure cost including many optional things.

2) The Flames claim they have a consultant tell them that if they re mediate the land incrementally while they develop the land build CalgaryNEXT it will cost $50 million

[jmac98]

That's for the chip and putt proposal

[hockey.modern]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Some renderings look like grass roofs or something? Seems cool IMO.

I think it's just a bad rendering...lol

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

The math still sucks or is fishy.

1) Saying infrastructure costs will be $112M instead of $327M. I'll take the city's word on infrastructure costs over a hockey team's. I mean, unless the Flames want to guarantee anything over $112M (tongue in cheek).

2) Remediation magically dropping from $140M to $90M. Based on what? Wasn't the city's original estimate based on a properly done report?

3) Financing costs being $214M instead of $391M. Willing to believe this one but I want to see the explanation.

4) Sale of cleaned up land being $310M+. The city would be able to sell this eventually, so it is a time value of money thing. $310M now vs $310M later does have a financial benefit, but it is not the total amount. It's not like $310M is magically appearing out of thin air. It is just moving forward in time. To say otherwise is an outright lie at worst, or intentionally misleading at best.

5) CRL of $435M being an inflow. That's a complete joke. Yes it is an inflow now, but it comes with less money later because future tax revenues are used to pay it off. It's not like $435M is magically appearing out of thin air. It is being borrowed at the expense of future money. Again, it is probably a net positive inflow in terms of NPV but the way they put that is an outright lie at worst, or intentionally misleading at best.

For the infrastructure and remediation costs it would be because the City included the cost for all of West Village. Flames said it's unfair that their project should be responsible for the whole cost.

I believe in their presentation they said that Calgary next would make up 11% of what would be the west village.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Now I'm delayed in responding, haven't been back in this thread in a while.

I don't think that's accurate then. The fact that $100M dollars today won't have the same value it does in 10 years isn't relevant in my opinion.

Well then you're choosing to ignore one of the most fundamental aspects of finance in a debate that is entirely about financing a major infrastructure project in our city.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

If the cities estimate to clean up the area today is $100M lets say (I can't remember what they said, but the actual number doesn't matter), it's not going to be $100M ten years from now when they want to do it. The cost of cleaning it up 10 years from now will likely increase at the same "discount rate" (in your example 5%) that you figured would make it cheaper to do in 10 years.

Things don't get cheaper in the future, they tend to get more expensive and cost more. The city will have to do re-calculate the clean up costs 10 years from now, and inflation will simply drive that cost up.

5% was assumed to be the real discount rate, not the nominal discount rate. If you think real discount rates in this city are negative (i.e. inflation is greater than the cost of money) then the entire financial system is *******. The discount rate, even considering inflation, is positive. To state otherwise is false.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

To me, outside of the city not being sure we need / want this scope of project, the biggest thing is they want it on the East side of DT:
1. Because it likely aligns with the funding / planning they are allocating to the East Village already (so developing that area is already in scope during the proposed time frame)
2. They do want tie in with the Stampede, keep the "event" locations in close proximity.

Totally agree that this is also one of the fundamental components of the city's stance. I happen to agree with it from a city planning perspective.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

King says he thinks it would be appropriate to open up the Flames books to the city manager under a confidentiality agreement. (if this goes further down the line).

Wow, I'm all about minimal funds towards private capitalists, but that's an olive branch.

[nik-]

I still don't like how crammed in it all is. I'd prefer they just do this separate, it's still a poor spot for an amateur facility with that lack of parking.

[sureLoss]

Full presentation to city council:

http://calgarynext.com/media.php

[troutman]

A florist in the concourse?

[Coach]

Bad rendering or not, if the roof of the field-house is permanent, I think having grass roofs with fields on top would be pretty cool. If you've ever played/been on the SAIT field, it's amazing to be up there. Fantastic view of downtown, great field, all that stuff.

I remember seeing a similar thing in NYC when I was there.

Also, saw Ken King on Stephen Ave during my lunch break. Cool story bro.

[jmac98]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Full presentation to city council:

http://calgarynext.com/media.php

Does this mean it's over?

Was there anything on the plan B initiative?

[Fire]

Originally Posted by nik-

I still don't like how crammed in it all is. I'd prefer they just do this separate, it's still a poor spot for an amateur facility with that lack of parking.

1500 spots is not enough for an amateur facility? How many people are expected to be using the facility at one time when the Flames and Stampeders are not using it?

[Coach]

I think having it right along the train line basically wipes out concerns for amateur parking. Any student athletes from the Uni will be able to be there in like 10-15 minutes.

[Table 5]

There are smarter people than I who can speak to the financial portion, but from a designers perspective, a couple of thoughts:

1) Even if it feels a bit claustrophobic, I'm glad they are at least thinking of connecting to the river, instead of having a street run between the stadium and the river like they did in the last round. Their tunnel idea doesn't sound particularly cheap of course (and Im not sure if its realistic), but it at least shows some creativity.

I still feel like handing the community planning over to CMLC is the right step. This thing has to be looked at as a whole...and the Flames aren't the right people to do that.

2) The design of the whole thing still feels very monolothic to me. Having the surface of the field be below ground is smart as it helps decrease it's impact, but this is still going to be one imposing mother of a building. That's always going to be a challenge with a building this big...but I can't help thinking of giant convention centers from bygone eras. It's not a place that invites hanging around.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think having it right along the train line basically wipes out concerns for amateur parking. Any student athletes from the Uni will be able to be there in like 10-15 minutes.

Lugging their equipment bags?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

Lugging their equipment bags?

The amateur field house will cater mostly to track and gym-based athletes. Most of them won't need more than a change of clothes and very little gear (balls, rackets, etc..).

Even football players don't really have much gear. It's pretty easy to carry in one hand with a small bag for clothes and shoes.