CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[stone hands]

I'd rather save about a billion dollars of tax money and drive 6 hours to go see a show in Edmonton

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Sounds like a bunch of hogwash.

Except that it isn't. Acoustics and load-bearing limitations for A/V equipment are two of the primary reasons certain acts skip coming to Calgary.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Muta

Except that it isn't. Acoustics and load-bearing limitations for A/V equipment are two of the primary reasons certain acts skip coming to Calgary.

Right, but there is also a multitude of other reasons why they do as well.

Why didn't Bruno Mars go to GM Place 2 years ago? Was it because GM place couldn't handle the speakers necessary for the concert, or was it likely some other reason that had nothing to do with the roof of the building?

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Right, but there is also a multitude of other reasons why they do as well.

Why didn't Bruno Mars go to GM Place 2 years ago? Was it because GM place couldn't handle the speakers necessary for the concert, or was it likely some other reason that had nothing to do with the roof of the building?

He played GM Place on the first leg of the tour in 2013 and then played Squamish festival in 2014.

The shows the other poster linked regarding the 2014 tour were on the way to Squamish. He wouldn't be allowed to play the festival and an arena show.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Right, but there is also a multitude of other reasons why they do as well.

So, in other words, not "hogwash". Can I be excused from linking the several acts who have said they couldn't play the Dome because of the structure?

You are correct that there can be and likely are, other reasons. I do think that it will be an interesting comparison going forward now that there's such a difference in venues between Calgary and Edmonton.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Muta

Except that it isn't. Acoustics and load-bearing limitations for A/V equipment are two of the primary reasons certain acts skip coming to Calgary.

What did Vancouver change, to acquire the act this time around?

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

What did Vancouver change, to acquire the act this time around?

Look two posts above yours.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Sounds like a bunch of hogwash.

Not really, current arena headlining acts are really into major stage set up designs and changing them each tour. It's a huge part of "changing" the fan "experience" from tour to tour.

Where good bands don't worry about fancy stage set ups or if they used the same one last tour because they rely on good new music and a great experience, pop acts who lip sync and sh*ttely dance through uninspired, perfectly calculated set times rely on making the fan feel like they're on a whole new amazing tour for their $250.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I'd rather save about a billion dollars of tax money and drive 6 hours to go see a show in Edmonton

You'd better never touch the left lane if that's your travel time, mister.

[GioforPM]

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...omes-drawbacks

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by jayswin

You'd better never touch the left lane if that's your travel time, mister.

Round trip?

[jammies]

Have they though of attaching giant hydrogen balloons to the Saddledome roof to counter the weight of these large speakers? As an added bonus, the balloons can be set on fire after the concert is over to provide an encore pyrotechnic show.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I like how some people have argued that not having a new rink will not prevent a lot of big name acts and events from coming, but when it's starting to actually demonstrate that this is in fact true, they revert back to, "So and So sucks, who cares if they play Calgary anyways".

It most definitely is a benefit of a new arena. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. It's why everyone would give a non-zero amount of money to a new arena. If they say otherwise to that also, they are again lying.

Is it worth ~$850M* in public funding though? Not in my book. Somewhere between $1 and $850M*, yup. And I can tell you which one I land closer to.

*$850M is based on the $1.3B incremental cost from the Flames latest report (which holds together in my book) less the $450M the Flames are putting in (I believe the ticket tax should count as Flames contribution).

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

It most definitely is a benefit of a new arena. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. It's why everyone would give a non-zero amount of money to a new arena. If they say otherwise to that also, they are again lying.

Is it worth ~$850M* in public funding though? Not in my book. Somewhere between $1 and $850M*, yup. And I can tell you which one I land closer to.

*$850M is based on the $1.3B incremental cost from the Flames latest report (which holds together in my book) less the $450M the Flames are putting in (I believe the ticket tax should count as Flames contribution).

I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm just saying its friggin' ridiculous to argue that we aren't losing events, because we are or to discredit that by saying So and So playing Edmonton sucks anyways.

[Joborule]

Fact is there are now numerous big acts skipping Calgary in favour for Edmonton. Drake and Kanye West the past two months, and Bruno Mars next year plus some more that will be announced sooner or later. Whether you care to give them your money or not, it proves that if you're interested in music from big acts, there's a fair chance that you'll have to travel outside of Calgary to see them live while the city doesn't have a replacement for the Saddledome.

I don't know what the economics are, and how much money these acts bring in or help stimulate the economy, but Calgary is missing on it.

[Flamenspiel]

^^Its kind of a moot point, most people tend to agree with the "arena" replacement. Its the very expensive WV proposal that is completely over the top that is getting very poor support. No one I talked to about this project actually believes the Flames are seriously considering it, its seen as a bargaining chip.

The ridiculous thing is that if the Flames threaten to leave, it would be the first time a hockey team leaves because they can't get a football stadium built.

[powderjunkie]

The good ole' merry ground of the two most annoying arguments of the arena: the 'big acts' we miss out on and the relocation threat.

1. We miss out on less than 5 shows a year specifically because of the roof. I think it's actually closer to 1-3 on average, but let's go ahead and assume it's 5. Economic impact? Debatable whether they really exist, and negligible if they do. Personal impact? Sure, but it's pretty much the definition of 'first-world problem'. This is absolutely an argument that can be plugged into the pro/con list of a new building, but IMO it is at the very bottom of the list in 6pt font with an * saying *this point is worth about two pennies in the grand scheme of things.

2. It's been pointed out several times that it would almost certainly be a poor business decision by the Flames and the league would never allow it. The more obvious point often overlooked is the relocation fee. Does anyone actually think they would plug at least $100M into a move that would have an uncertain impact on their operating revenues and total franchise value? When the alternative is a similar additional investment in Calgary to achieve more certain benefits - including an increase in franchise value that would come close to paying off this investment instantly. The move threat is simply pathetic.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The good ole' merry ground of the two most annoying arguments of the arena: the 'big acts' we miss out on and the relocation threat.

1. We miss out on less than 5 shows a year specifically because of the roof. I think it's actually closer to 1-3 on average, but let's go ahead and assume it's 5. Economic impact? Debatable whether they really exist, and negligible if they do. Personal impact? Sure, but it's pretty much the definition of 'first-world problem'. This is absolutely an argument that can be plugged into the pro/con list of a new building, but IMO it is at the very bottom of the list in 6pt font with an * saying *this point is worth about two pennies in the grand scheme of things.

2. It's been pointed out several times that it would almost certainly be a poor business decision by the Flames and the league would never allow it. The more obvious point often overlooked is the relocation fee. Does anyone actually think they would plug at least $100M into a move that would have an uncertain impact on their operating revenues and total franchise value? When the alternative is a similar additional investment in Calgary to achieve more certain benefits - including an increase in franchise value that would come close to paying off this investment instantly. The move threat is simply pathetic.

I don't think they would move, nor even threaten. But a move is only a risk if they continue to be the owners. If they sell they make a bunch of money.

No one is selling the lost concerts as a main reason to support a new arena. It's simply a factor. I do think it's funny that I hear arguments about not using money for something that's just sports/millionaire owners and athletes and then at the same time dismiss arguments about being able to use the place for more concerts.

[Bunk]

From the City's updated capital budget plan (mid-cycle review)

Huh


http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sire...6112958212.PDF

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Bunk

From the City's updated capital budget plan (mid-cycle review)

Huh


http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sire...6112958212.PDF

Most useful post in this thread for quite some time. Thanks! Posts like this is why I come to read this forum.