CalgaryNEXT project on pause, says Ken King

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well there are different ways to define adequate. Not as nice as your neighbor's arena isn't the same as inadequate.

How about "worse than any other NHL arena"? I haven't been to all of them but I've been to my fair share and Calgary has the worst fan facilities. It also doesn't seem to have good playing conditions. This makes sense because Calgary's rink is much older than any other (except MSG which has undergone a Reno that cost more than a typical new arena).

[TopChed]

Originally Posted by New Era

Except the Saddledome is not perfectly adequate. You need to get out and see some events in other arenas. The Saddledome isn't a dump, but it is sorely lacking in comparison to other facilities. I'd put it on the bottom of the list for Canadian facilities and in the bottom five in the NHL. The Saddledome and the whole Stampede grounds is sub standard. Calgary can do much better.

Sub standard in what sense? Long concession and washroom lines? Relatively small lower bowl? Inability to host large touring concerts?

I really don't think improving any of these deficiencies will vastly benefit the average fan. A large season ticket price increase allows you to spend your money faster at a wider array of vendors. It doesn't buy you better sight lines or a largely superior game day experience as far as I know. So what is the benefit? How much more are you willing to pay for a similar experience?

I just read this article posted by an Oilers fan about their new rink. A price increase of ~60% for an equivalent season ticket seems like a lot to shell out for a marginally better experience, but hey, why not spend our city's tax dollars right? Surely you're buying season tickets regardless?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How about "worse than any other NHL arena"? I haven't been to all of them but I've been to my fair share and Calgary has the worst fan facilities. It also doesn't seem to have good playing conditions. This makes sense because Calgary's rink is much older than any other (except MSG which has undergone a Reno that cost more than a typical new arena).

This.

My god, the ice conditions alone require at least a fundamental rebuild. But they tried to fix it after the flood and it seems just too far gone now. At some point it becomes imperative to get a new arena if only to meet the minimum standards of NHL quality ice. I doubt it's going to get better. Likely only gets worse overtime.

But yeah, the facilities for fans are pretty poor compared to the rest of the league. It's not essential, (see Detroit: Joe Louis arena for years) but eventually you have to modernize and bring the arena up to a competitive standard for the rest of the league. A little "keeping up with the Jones'" but that's the cost of having NHL level income walk through your door.

[Lanny's Moustache]

The Oilers new arena was sold to their fans and city as a bill of goods. They conned the city into a deal and the fans are paying a fortune more all while the building has deficiencies that should not exist in a brand new, state of the art "icon" as described by Rogers.

Yes, a new building is needed for this city and the reasons have all been stated. And a new building will use tax dollars in some capacity. But let's not pretend that the city doesn't toss money down the drain every year in complete waste. If money goes towards a new arena primarily for the Flames and/or a new stadium primarily for the Stamps it will just be money that doesn't get spent on a 2 year study to change the city's official name to Calgary City.

If people are so up in arms about the possible tax dollars being spent why aren't you out all the time contacting your alderman, writing your MLA and so on? Why is there so little outrage when our roads turn to the garbage that they have the past few days as a point of where tax money should go instead of an arena. Instead all most of the complainers do is try to win arguments on the internet when they know tax money will be spent in ways they don't agree with.

I'd hope the Flames aren't stupid enough to believe their fans will follow Oiler fans idiocy. While the Dome is old and does have it's share of problems due to it's age and design it is still 1000 times better than what the Oilers moved out of and where the Wings currently play. But the Dome has outlived it's original design and like Deerfoot, Stoney, 16th and so on, it's time to expand and modernize. That's what cities like Calgary do, regardless if you agree with it or not. If you feel that passionately that it's just "giving money to billionaires" you are free to move elsewhere and enjoy Flames hockey on TV alone. No one has said your tax dollars have to go to Calgary as it's a free country and you can move to Didsbury or Nanton. I hope they don't decide to build a publicy funded arena there though. Moving gets expensive.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

nm double post

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

The Oilers new arena was sold to their fans and city as a bill of goods. They conned the city into a deal and the fans are paying a fortune more all while the building has deficiencies that should not exist in a brand new, state of the art "icon" as described by Rogers.

Yes, a new building is needed for this city and the reasons have all been stated. And a new building will use tax dollars in some capacity. But let's not pretend that the city doesn't toss money down the drain every year in complete waste. If money goes towards a new arena primarily for the Flames and/or a new stadium primarily for the Stamps it will just be money that doesn't get spent on a 2 year study to change the city's official name to Calgary City.

If people are so up in arms about the possible tax dollars being spent why aren't you out all the time contacting your alderman, writing your MLA and so on? Why is there so little outrage when our roads turn to the garbage that they have the past few days as a point of where tax money should go instead of an arena. Instead all most of the complainers do is try to win arguments on the internet when they know tax money will be spent in ways they don't agree with.

I'd hope the Flames aren't stupid enough to believe their fans will follow Oiler fans idiocy. While the Dome is old and does have it's share of problems due to it's age and design it is still 1000 times better than what the Oilers moved out of and where the Wings currently play. But the Dome has outlived it's original design and like Deerfoot, Stoney, 16th and so on, it's time to expand and modernize. That's what cities like Calgary do, regardless if you agree with it or not. If you feel that passionately that it's just "giving money to billionaires" you are free to move elsewhere and enjoy Flames hockey on TV alone. No one has said your tax dollars have to go to Calgary as it's a free country and you can move to Didsbury or Nanton. I hope they don't decide to build a publicy funded arena there though. Moving gets expensive.

The new arena will look great on HD for working class Flames fans.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That has nothing to do with capitalism.

Correct: Giving hundreds of millions in public funding to billionaires to build a private facility that most of the public can't afford to use has nothing to do with capitalism. In capitalism, a private arena is only built with private money.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

The new arena will look great on HD for working class Flames fans.

Hopefully Rogers improves their HD broadcast quality so that we can see the rink in all it's glory.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Lanny's Moustache

The Oilers new arena was sold to their fans and city as a bill of goods. They conned the city into a deal and the fans are paying a fortune more all while the building has deficiencies that should not exist in a brand new, state of the art "icon" as described by Rogers.

Yes, a new building is needed for this city and the reasons have all been stated. And a new building will use tax dollars in some capacity. But let's not pretend that the city doesn't toss money down the drain every year in complete waste. If money goes towards a new arena primarily for the Flames and/or a new stadium primarily for the Stamps it will just be money that doesn't get spent on a 2 year study to change the city's official name to Calgary City.

If people are so up in arms about the possible tax dollars being spent why aren't you out all the time contacting your alderman, writing your MLA and so on? Why is there so little outrage when our roads turn to the garbage that they have the past few days as a point of where tax money should go instead of an arena. Instead all most of the complainers do is try to win arguments on the internet when they know tax money will be spent in ways they don't agree with.

I'd hope the Flames aren't stupid enough to believe their fans will follow Oiler fans idiocy. While the Dome is old and does have it's share of problems due to it's age and design it is still 1000 times better than what the Oilers moved out of and where the Wings currently play. But the Dome has outlived it's original design and like Deerfoot, Stoney, 16th and so on, it's time to expand and modernize. That's what cities like Calgary do, regardless if you agree with it or not. If you feel that passionately that it's just "giving money to billionaires" you are free to move elsewhere and enjoy Flames hockey on TV alone. No one has said your tax dollars have to go to Calgary as it's a free country and you can move to Didsbury or Nanton. I hope they don't decide to build a publicy funded arena there though. Moving gets expensive.

A couple things:

1- I have contacted my alderman

2 - the argument "well we waste tax dollars anyway, so why not spend money on this" is a terrible argument that applies to all levels of politics. The correct argument is identifying the such wastage, try to have it remove, and spending money on new projects based on their merits (i.e. the wastage and new spending shouldn't be linked) Also, the massive amounts of money you are talking about doesn't equal the City wastage you are implying

3- Calgary could have better roads if we spent more money on them. We don't, depend on Chinooks and have cheaper road clearing budgets. We save money. Yet, in the same post you say we waste money, and then want us to spend more money on the roads, and find money for this arena. Calgaryians who want cleaner roads should vote for tax increases.

4- If we feel passionately that public money shouldn't be spent on this arena, it is very short sighted of you to tell us to move. We SHOULD SPEAK UP and contact our alderman and participate in our democracy. If you are for the arena, you should do the same.

5 - You post is against the point of having a discussion about a new NHL arena on an internet forum about an NHL team. This is a forum, people have discussions about relevant things. You should accept this.

Instead all most of the complainers do is try to win arguments on the internet when they know tax money will be spent in ways they don't agree with.

Forgive me, I read your post as "either your for the arena or against Calgary". Whereas I am against the arena because I want the BEST Calgary - in my view of course, just like anyone else.

Only someone with their head up their .... would be foolish enough to think their aren't other views to a discussion such as this and they the other views may have merits.

[wired]

Perhaps if the location was not right next to the river.
Having the proposed location where so much work needs to be done to make the land safe, and right in the flood plain does not seem smart.
But......putting an arena right in the downtown core is a very bad idea, see Edmonton.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by wired

Perhaps if the location was not right next to the river.
Having the proposed location where so much work needs to be done to make the land safe, and right in the flood plain does not seem smart.
But......putting an arena right in the downtown core is a very bad idea, see Edmonton.

As we saw in 2013, the West Village area is not really at risk for flooding, even though it's right next to the river.





Also, oddly enough, even though Stampede Park was badly hit during the flood, the "Plan B" area being discussed for the new arena (the corner of 12th Ave and 4th St) remained dry.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by wired

Perhaps if the location was not right next to the river.
Having the proposed location where so much work needs to be done to make the land safe, and right in the flood plain does not seem smart.
But......putting an arena right in the downtown core is a very bad idea, see Edmonton.

I dislike Edmonton's funding model, but... I would argue they nailed the spot for the arena based on the City's needs. Why do you think its a bad location?

Also, if the dry dam goes through, flooding may be a moot point.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by wired

Perhaps if the location was not right next to the river.
Having the proposed location where so much work needs to be done to make the land safe, and right in the flood plain does not seem smart.
But......putting an arena right in the downtown core is a very bad idea, see Edmonton.

The NHL went through a phase of remote suburban arenas like Kanata and Glendale, and went back to preferring downtown arenas.

The West Village is not in the flood plain. And the work to make the land safe (I assume you mean the creosote issue) was in part the impetus and rationale for the proposal. It is hard to imagine the cleanup happening without a project to kickstart it.

[djsFlames]

Geez, it's been over a year now since the sad excuse of a proposal with vague, amateur renderings and little to nothing has come of it in that time, other than he said, she said drama between KK and co and the city council.

Now "on pause".. what exactly did they pause?

Just go with the Victoria Park arena plan B and get it done.

[PepsiFree]

I've said it once before but it's worth repeating.

Having been to Edmonton's new arena a couple times now, I'm all for Calgary having a new arena... but not if it means taxpayer money is involved. Sure, Edmonton's arena is nice, it's in a decent spot, bathroom/food/drink lines are a breeze... but overall my experience was no better because of these things.

The differences to me are as significant as upgrading your coffee maker. Sure, you can get one with a few more features, maybe it grinds the coffee for you, maybe it's 50% faster... but at the end of the day it's a means to an end, and the end is the same. If you like the product, the insignificant little things around it are instantly forgettable. I went up to Edmonton because concerts were playing there that weren't coming here, but how does that negatively impact Calgary? Outside of money spent at the arena, I didn't spend a dime on something that I would've still had to spend money on here. It's not like 'Calgary' lost a little business, just the Saddledome. If they want that business, then they can pay to upgrade/rebuild.

They can put the arena wherever, add a user fee, do what they have to do to make the numbers work. But public funds should not be going into this arena. It's not a waste of money, but it's an extremely poor way to spend it.

It's a bit sad to hear someone say "If you don't like it, move." I love interesting projects that actually stand to benefit Calgarians of all varieties. This isn't one.

I really hope people who are against projects that have no discernable benefits other than "lines are shorter" and "it's just what cities like Calgary do" don't move. It'd be a very poor, very shortsighted city without them.

[jammies]

I'm only in favour of "Calgary, love it or leave it!" if we can expel all those against the Peace Bridge and downtown bike lanes too. Don't like the way the city is spending your taxes? Move! Completely reasonable.

PS: Oh, and Locke can be driven out, too - that guy was born to live in Airdrie. AIRDRIE! LIKE A PEASANT!

[Lanny's Moustache]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

A couple things:

1- I have contacted my alderman

2 - the argument "well we waste tax dollars anyway, so why not spend money on this" is a terrible argument that applies to all levels of politics. The correct argument is identifying the such wastage, try to have it remove, and spending money on new projects based on their merits (i.e. the wastage and new spending shouldn't be linked) Also, the massive amounts of money you are talking about doesn't equal the City wastage you are implying

3- Calgary could have better roads if we spent more money on them. We don't, depend on Chinooks and have cheaper road clearing budgets. We save money. Yet, in the same post you say we waste money, and then want us to spend more money on the roads, and find money for this arena. Calgaryians who want cleaner roads should vote for tax increases.

4- If we feel passionately that public money shouldn't be spent on this arena, it is very short sighted of you to tell us to move. We SHOULD SPEAK UP and contact our alderman and participate in our democracy. If you are for the arena, you should do the same.

5 - You post is against the point of having a discussion about a new NHL arena on an internet forum about an NHL team. This is a forum, people have discussions about relevant things. You should accept this.


Forgive me, I read your post as "either your for the arena or against Calgary". Whereas I am against the arena because I want the BEST Calgary - in my view of course, just like anyone else.

Only someone with their head up their .... would be foolish enough to think their aren't other views to a discussion such as this and they the other views may have merits.

Thanks for the bullet points, but I said most people, not all. A few do take more action than shaking their fist at an internet cloud.

Further, millions of dollars are wasted by the city and province every year. This won't change, It's politics. And millions of dollars are spent on projects you don't like. I've watched this forum get it's panties in a knot because money was being spent on outlying areas of the city at the supposed expense of those paying higher taxes living inner-city. Again, if you don't like how the city spends it's money try to do something about it or move somewhere that you completely agree with.

At the end of the day public funding will be spent. That's how these things work. How much and on what is yet to be determined but it is a fact when living in a city the size and with the things Calgary does. I, for one, am all for improving the city's infrastructure, beauty and amenities as that is what taxes are for.

If the Flames chose to hike ticket prices 60% like the Oilers then good luck to them selling out their shiny new building. I try to believe they are smarter than that but who knows what will happen. Having spoken to Ken King while in 2 other far more modern buildings than the Dome, and without any of the line-ups, choke points and short-pouring beer stands like the Coilers built, I get a strong sense that he knows what to and not to do. The hate here for him is laughable but expected based on the opinions people are so openly willing to share.

As for road cleaning, well that's just the city trying to "save" so they can waste elsewhere. I've had many discussions with city workers and those at city hall about it and what it comes down to is general political wasting not being called out by voters and generally apathetic citizens who bitch and moan then drive their SUV with 3 season tires into a ditch. So nothing actually gets done. I was unfortunately denied 3 times trying to start an actual snow removal business to serve at least my community that would clear roads of snow instead of poorly attempting to push it to the side and leave side streets to rot until spring. MY alderman hasn't received a vote from me in years. Yet he's still employed.

[GioforPM]

I'm sure they will be going with Vic park at this stage. I'm also sure that McMahon won't get addressed, there will be no field house and the creosote issue won't get addressed for at least 10 years if this happens.

I'd also put pretty good odds on the new location getting flooded. I'm not convinced of the merits of the dry dam.

[Lanny's Moustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'd also put pretty good odds on the new location getting flooded. I'm not convinced of the merits of the dry dam.

Because the 'Dome was constantly under water?

[Reggie Dunlop]

I think the field house gets built. It's a needed public-purpose facility and can be used for 12 or so Stampeders games per year. The Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation were smart to tie that into their proposal.

Maybe tear down the also-antiquated Foothills Stadium and build it there. McMahon could be later torn down for a modern baseball park?