[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[GreenLantern2814]

I suppose the Flames could always open their books to ensure transparency....

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

He's already winning in my eyes by forcing the issue and making this entire process a lot more intrusive than many mayors would. The next proposal CSEC pitches is going to be a hell of a lot better than the first one from a financial standpoint and I'd bet that once that is further negotiated, a new building will end up being much more reasonable for all.

Nenshi becomes the jerk who hates the Flames when he resorts to the juvenile tactics he's relied upon in the past by getting personal and overstepping his bounds.

For the most part I agree.

He wasnt super polite about it. Sometimes hes a snarky jerk.

CalgaryNEXT was a hot mess and if I'd had it sitting in my lap for a couple years I'd probably be somewhat 'less than polite' myself.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Locke

For the most part I agree.

He wasnt super polite about it. Sometimes hes a snarky jerk.

CalgaryNEXT was a hot mess and if I'd had it sitting in my lap for a couple years I'd probably be somewhat 'less than polite' myself.

Agreed.

What the whole Nenshi/CalgaryNEXT fiasco has done is at least laid the groundwork for a much more basic facility. A facility that can still be state of the art in many ways but does not need to be on a riverfront, connected to an elaborate field house, with no dependable transit/parking access.

Reduce the ask, reduce the cost and let's start talking again.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I do think Plan B will get done by the end of the year, maybe even by the end of the summer. What I worry could derail it is if the Flames go on a deep playoff run and Ken King and Co. use that as an excuse to try and push CalgaryNEXT again by using the playoff run and fan enthusiasm that it will bring to try and sell CalgaryNEXT as being what is really needed. CalgaryNEXT....it's like Edmonton, simply no good. Plan B is a much better option.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I suppose the Flames could always open their books to ensure transparency....

Ken King in a City Council meeting already said the Flames would release their books to the city under a confidentiality agreement when the negotiations got farther along.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I do think Plan B will get done by the end of the year, maybe even by the end of the summer. What I worry could derail it is if the Flames go on a deep playoff run and Ken King and Co. use that as an excuse to try and push CalgaryNEXT again by using the playoff run and fan enthusiasm that it will bring to try and sell CalgaryNEXT as being what is really needed. CalgaryNEXT....it's like Edmonton, simply no good. Plan B is a much better option.

Well that's what they tried last time, and it landed with a thud. Playoff series win, hype around the team, rush out a proposal.

Maybe that's giving them more credit than they deserve. Maybe they legitimately did spend a lot of time on that initial proposal, but I hope not.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I do think Plan B will get done by the end of the year, maybe even by the end of the summer. What I worry could derail it is if the Flames go on a deep playoff run and Ken King and Co. use that as an excuse to try and push CalgaryNEXT again by using the playoff run and fan enthusiasm that it will bring to try and sell CalgaryNEXT as being what is really needed. CalgaryNEXT....it's like Edmonton, simply no good. Plan B is a much better option.

My fear is that this potential Olympic bid is going to somehow bring CalgaryNEXT back to life like a greasy fart circling in in the wind.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Bingo, correct me if I have this wrong, but your position here almost seems like you want the city to act as a developer.

Your stance has constantly come across as "CalgaryNEXT isn't that great, but the city is unreasonable because they won't come up with their own concept, and the mayor saying "no" to a proposal that ultimately the city needs to approve or deny isn't a constructive manner of moving the process forward".

If they don't like CalgaryNEXT, my impression is you feel the city should be the ones putting together a proposal for an alternate location, and an alternate funding structure.

There are absolutely examples of cities acting as developers, it happens all the time, but it is something Calgary has shied away from, except for some arms-length work with CMLC.

Is it your view that the city should act as a developer of private lands, and spin up the resources required to act as such? Currently, that capability doesn't really exist within the city, and what you are asking them to do is outside of their current operating scope.

If the argument here is that the city should act as a developer, bring in those capabilities to their organization, and bear the risks that these projects entail, I feel that is possibly a larger discussion. Currently, we turn to the free market for development, and it is the city's role to approve or deny applications. Not to fund them. Not to design them. Is this something you feel should fundamentally change, and our civic structure should expand to perform these duties?

I would be very open to the idea of the city proposing the Flames work with CMLC. In fact I'd be down right excited about it.

The thing is, speaking of organizations who don't have the capabilities to act as developers, the Flames are struggling to do something that is also outside of their core business. So here we are.

Wow ... there's a lot there.

I don't think I need them to be a developer, but the need to grandstand and politicize this issue is a waste of an opportunity.

They have their own plans, and ideas and vision (probably more than one) for the West Village, but I think it's fair to say something should be done to clean up that Bronconier mess.

Seems to me a more responsible way to conduct yourself when presented with an opportunity is to analyze it and respond what doesn't work so the other side can do the work to make it fit the city's needs.

If you say no because and have a list of say 7 issues and the CSEC sees the 7 things as deal breakers then you come to a close in a professional way.

To just take pot shots at the other side is a waste of an opportunity, and a huge disappointment to me.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

My fear is that this potential Olympic bid is going to somehow bring CalgaryNEXT back to life like a greasy fart circling in in the wind.

I don't think so, if anything trying to tie an Olympic bid to CalgaryNEXT makes it clear CalgaryNEXT is not about a community fieldhouse. Nothing says community fieldhouse like we have to shut it down for 6-8 weeks so we can host one of the most corrupt organizations on earth. If anything the Olympics could be used to leverage fixing McMahon, or even a standalone stadium.

[KingMoo]

god forbid Calgary uses a little public money to build a complex that's out of the norm. So Calgarian to reject creativity and build something boring instead.

Biggest problem here is that Nenshi didn't feel the need to offer much of an explanation or tell the Flames to do more research and submit a new proposal. Instead he figured a big fu "dead" was his best play.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wow ... there's a lot there.

I don't think I need them to be a developer, but the need to grandstand and politicize this issue is a waste of an opportunity.

They have their own plans, and ideas and vision (probably more than one) for the West Village, but I think it's fair to say something should be done to clean up that Bronconier mess.

Seems to me a more responsible way to conduct yourself when presented with an opportunity is to analyze it and respond what doesn't work so the other side can do the work to make it fit the city's needs.

If you say no because and have a list of say 7 issues and the CSEC sees the 7 things as deal breakers then you come to a close in a professional way.

To just take pot shots at the other side is a waste of an opportunity, and a huge disappointment to me.

Show me where the City took pot shots at the Flames?
The worst I can find is Nenshi calling the project dead.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wow ... there's a lot there.

I don't think I need them to be a developer, but the need to grandstand and politicize this issue is a waste of an opportunity.

They have their own plans, and ideas and vision (probably more than one) for the West Village, but I think it's fair to say something should be done to clean up that Bronconier mess.

Seems to me a more responsible way to conduct yourself when presented with an opportunity is to analyze it and respond what doesn't work so the other side can do the work to make it fit the city's needs.

If you say no because and have a list of say 7 issues and the CSEC sees the 7 things as deal breakers then you come to a close in a professional way.

To just take pot shots at the other side is a waste of an opportunity, and a huge disappointment to me.

Sounds like you were sitting in chambers for all of the meetings. I think it's delusional to think after many hours in meetings, and lengthy written responses, that all the city ever said was "no".

I think you're grandstanding in this thread more than Nenshi or Ken King could be accused of during the entire process.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Sounds like you were sitting in chambers for all of the meetings. I think it's delusional to think after many hours in meetings, and lengthy written responses, that all the city ever said was "no".

I think you're grandstanding in this thread more than Nenshi or Ken King could be accused of during the entire process.

Where the hell did I grandstand?

Do I honestly have to go look up Nenshi quotes now to prove a point? I think we can all agree the guy likes to hear himself talk.

You asked how they should respond, asked about being a developer, and I answered.

You don't need to do any of the work if you're clear as to why the CSEC plan doesn't work. Do that and they can have a look at it.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Do I honestly have to go look up Nenshi quotes now to prove a point? I think we can all agree the guy likes to hear himself talk.
.

Considering you said this an hour ago, it'd be nice.

To just take pot shots at the other side is a waste of an opportunity, and a huge disappointment to me.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Considering you said this an hour ago, it'd be nice.

“This project was announced, frankly, without all of the homework being done,” Nenshi told reporters Monday. “It’s not even half-baked. It’s not even in the oven yet. This is a matter of stirring the batter and putting it in the oven.”

After asking the Flames group to look into plan B he unilaterally nukes the other option ...

“The thing about a new arena project – and I’ll use those terms because CalgaryNext, the West Village, is dead – but the thing about a new arena project is that our first criterion has always been public money for public benefits,” Nenshi said. “So, it really is up to the Calgary Sports and Entertainment [Corporation] to figure out what the public benefit is.”

"The whole point is there's no proposal. It's just an idea," after the CSEC rolls out a plan with a funding model

“When I build a library or a bridge or an interchange,” Mr. Nenshi says, “if I went to the public and I said, ‘I’m building something with your money that has a 25-30-year life cycle,’ they would ride me out of town. If I went to the public and said I will build a community hockey rink that is only going to last two generations of kids and then we’ll have to build a new one, I’d be kicked out of town.

- the Saddledome is 35 years old and will easily be 40 before a new rink will open

“I will point out that I made the mistake of reading the comments and it is interesting that the calls to our office, the emails, the comments have been 99.999997 per cent saying ‘please Mr. Bettman stay out of it’ and ‘no there should be no public money for this,” said the mayor.

Maybe that same guy that calls the airport 5 times a day has Nenshi on speed dial too! Either way 99.999997% of Calgarians means 4/10 of one person is in favour, he may have made that up

“Perhaps in other cities that he has come to, the city councils have just written checks based on back-of-the-napkin proposals without any consultation to the public or without any analysis,” he said.

“That’s not how we operate here. We have a comprehensive framework in place. We’ll see what the numbers look like come spring and have a very big public discussion about it.”

doesn't look like we get that public discussion as he unilaterally killed it this week. Either way I'm sure those that worked hard on the CalgaryNext project loved hearing it was back of a napkin and had no analysis. That's nice

[MrMastodonFarm]

Pretty tame stuff IMO.

[nik-]

Bingo are you under the impression that CalgaryNext was moving along and then now Nenshi just unilaterally killed it? That thing was dead the moment the cost rug was turned over, statement from the mayor or not. The Flames threw a public hail Mary on their opening play, it didn't work. Perhaps next time they'll consult with their "partners" first before directly trying to use public opinion. Public opinion they grossly misread at that.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Pretty tame stuff IMO.

Well I wasn't expecting you to agree with it, but it sure didn't take me much time to find it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Bingo are you under the impression that CalgaryNext was moving along and then now Nenshi just unilaterally killed it? That thing was dead the moment the cost rug was turned over, statement from the mayor or not. The Flames threw a public hail Mary on their opening play, it didn't work. Perhaps next time they'll consult with their "partners" first before directly trying to use public opinion. Public opinion they grossly misread at that.

Not at all.

But to take months to come back with a different cost assessment that gives CalgaryNEXT all the infrastructure costs (lame) and then say look at plan B only to just unilaterally kill it is pretty weak.

I guess I have to say it again.

I think the project was too robust.
I didn't like King's presentation of it.
I did think it was an opportunity for the city to respond to with changes.
They failed to do that.
That's not constructive.
I don't care if Calgarynext lives on at all.
But I'd prefer to have a mayor that isn't about the quote and is more about the substance.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But I'd prefer to have a mayor that isn't about the quote and is more about the substance.

I think we'd all love politicians with substance over style. But that simply doesn't win elections. I believe this is known as a classic case "Don't hate the player, hate the game". When they get the chance to grandstand on issues they know they have strong public support for, it's just how they do.