There have been many instances where a major construction proposal was put off until costs went down. The fact that you think it's stupid to suggest such a thing says more about you than it does about me.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
There have been many instances where a major construction proposal was put off until costs went down. The fact that you think it's stupid to suggest such a thing says more about you than it does about me.
The concept isn't foreign to me, so thanks for that basic info. I think it shows a lot of misplaced faith in the Flames ability to handle a project of this scope. That's what I think is stupid. Using the evidence of their performance on this thus far, it's a pretty easy assumption that it's lack of execution and not stellar planning for two downturns in the future.
The City has been pretty consistent that they want EV to build out before they do the WV. Considering the downturn, and it not looking like it is going away, decades is probably a lot more likely than even between 10 and 15 years.
The City did a study, and then said no and that it wasn't feasible. That seems like moving on. It seems it's King who can't move on. Even when another solution is worked up for him.
Boom
So there it is in bold, the city's press release. Done.
You don't need to spend 4 months coming up with a way to assign all the costs to one project and then announce they had their numbers wrong.
So there it is in bold, the city's press release. Done.
You don't need to spend 4 months coming up with a way to assign all the costs to one project and then announce they had their numbers wrong.
So you prefer they just outright rejected it with a statement saying they didn't want to do the WV yet? I honestly can't buy that would have flown.
The Flames presented a number and said this is what it will cost the City. Straight up those numbers were wrong. By a massive amount. Even if you adjust the assignment scale towards the end you're comfortable with they were way wrong.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
So there it is in bold, the city's press release. Done.
You don't need to spend 4 months coming up with a way to assign all the costs to one project and then announce they had their numbers wrong.
Imagine the outrage from CSEC apologists if the City had dismissed CalgaryNext as you suggested.
I guess I don't have issue with the city's response because one of the weakest aspects of the Calgary Next proposal was the lack of accounting for all the related costs. So the City tried to do that. To say that they wrongly allocated all those costs to the project is I suppose correct, but seems like a reasonable response and closer to reality than the Flames proposal.
Those are real costs that needed to be incurred. I don't see a problem with spending time to come up with a real price tag.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
They could have submitted a proposal at a time when there was a critical shortage of labour, during a building boom which drove up the price of materials, or they could wait and try submitting a proposal to a city where the construction industry is hurting, needs the jobs, and the work can be done more cheaply.
Right. Stupid move.
I'm familiar with basic economics, but have you been noticing the spiraling costs of skilled labour? I havent.
What about the costs of materials, especially materials that have to be shipped in from the US and getting raked over the coals on the exchange as well as the increased cost of shipping?
All that and asking a cash-strapped City for cash.
I'm not seeing any especially skilled economic maneuvers here.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
I'm familiar with basic economics, but have you been noticing the spiraling costs of skilled labour? I havent.
What about the costs of materials, especially materials that have to be shipped in from the US and getting raked over the coals on the exchange as well as the increased cost of shipping?
All that and asking a cash-strapped City for cash.
I'm not seeing any especially skilled economic maneuvers here.
Man, all the bids I've seen or heard about in Calgary have been coming in lower and lower. There is a lot of undercutting happening. If you want affordable work done, this is the time.
So you prefer they just outright rejected it with a statement saying they didn't want to do the WV yet? I honestly can't buy that would have flown.
The Flames presented a number and said this is what it will cost the City. Straight up those numbers were wrong. By a massive amount. Even if you adjust the assignment scale towards the end you're comfortable with they were way wrong.
Well I can't speak for everyone, but I would be fine with not wanting two sides of downtown under construction at the same time.
If they wanted a catalyst for the contamination then away they went, but if they wouldn't support developing both at front it makes sense to me.
But otherwise I disagree, that area with or without a building needs roads, utilities, roads moved, probably with the Crowchild change some re working there. And none of that changes today with CalgaryNext effectively dead.
Those costs are West Village costs, not all CalgaryNext. Silly to sum it up as one and say they were wrong.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Well I can't speak for everyone, but I would be fine with not wanting two sides of downtown under construction at the same time.
If they wanted a catalyst for the contamination then away they went, but if they wouldn't support developing both at front it makes sense to me.
But otherwise I disagree, that area with or without a building needs roads, utilities, roads moved, probably with the Crowchild change some re working there. And none of that changes today with CalgaryNext effectively dead.
Those costs are West Village costs, not all CalgaryNext. Silly to sum it up as one and say they were wrong.
Thank you, I can not stand this cost differential argument and how flames were "lying".
Lets compare apples to Oranges and try to argue they are the same.
So there it is in bold, the city's press release. Done.
You don't need to spend 4 months coming up with a way to assign all the costs to one project and then announce they had their numbers wrong.
So they reject it right off the bat without taking the time to consider it and you would be on here saying the city hasn't done anything to move this forward.
Well I can't speak for everyone, but I would be fine with not wanting two sides of downtown under construction at the same time.
If they wanted a catalyst for the contamination then away they went, but if they wouldn't support developing both at front it makes sense to me.
But otherwise I disagree, that area with or without a building needs roads, utilities, roads moved, probably with the Crowchild change some re working there. And none of that changes today with CalgaryNext effectively dead.
Those costs are West Village costs, not all CalgaryNext. Silly to sum it up as one and say they were wrong.
These issues were debated during the initial calgarynext proposal. I suggest you look back at the thread rather than rehashing old arguments again and again.
So they reject it right off the bat without taking the time to consider it and you would be on here saying the city hasn't done anything to move this forward.
Stop digging the hole.
"Dig up, stupid"
If the city has a long range plan that doesn't permit building up the west village at this time I would get it.
You have no idea how I would respond to a hypothetical situation.
These issues were debated during the initial calgarynext proposal. I suggest you look back at the thread rather than rehashing old arguments again and again.
First off this whole thing is 90 pages of re-hashing so not sure why you're picking now to have a problem with it.
Build timeline aside, the project cost more than originally announced, was mainly paid for by taxpayers, and offered zero payback through property tax.
Raw deal is raw. We can bicker about who said what and when. I for one am glad we don't have Barb Higgins as mayor, shovels in the ground, a boondoggle, and a handful of happy Calgarians.
Well I can't speak for everyone, but I would be fine with not wanting two sides of downtown under construction at the same time.
If they wanted a catalyst for the contamination then away they went, but if they wouldn't support developing both at front it makes sense to me.
But otherwise I disagree, that area with or without a building needs roads, utilities, roads moved, probably with the Crowchild change some re working there. And none of that changes today with CalgaryNext effectively dead.
Those costs are West Village costs, not all CalgaryNext. Silly to sum it up as one and say they were wrong.
I don't know if the city ever said that those costs were all on CalgaryNext. They simply calculated the total cost of building everything required to make CalgaryNext happen. For the city's concern, that additional money is an important part of the equation.
It's been said many times, but the CalgaryNext proposal required a CRL to fund it that simply could never work. The CRL would have had to fund the entire rest of the upgrades required in the area and the rehabilitation of the land, on top of paying for a portion of the facility, and would have left very little decent developable land left to actually pay back that loan.
They released a brief in 2016 on CRL projections. The conclusion was that CRL would not be sufficient to allow for development to begin anytime soon with or without CalgaryNEXT. It's pretty clear that until demand rises, the WV wont happen. Doubly so, with CalgaryNEXT soaking up a large percentage of CRL $.
Quote:
The CalgaryNEXT project is not anticipated to be a property tax paying project similar to the New
Central Library and National Music Centre in the Rivers District. Therefore there will be property
tax foregone from the land utilized for this project.
They released a brief in 2016 on CRL projections. The conclusion was that CRL would not be sufficient to allow for development to begin anytime soon with or without CalgaryNEXT. It's pretty clear that until demand rises, the WV wont happen. Doubly so, with CalgaryNEXT soaking up a large percentage of CRL $.
On the Flames side, the commissioned a study to see how CalgaryNEXT aligned or didn't with the various ARP policies.
This is dated January 2016. Almost 6 months after Ken King unveiling the project.
You bet and I said that. Said they had a plan for West Village and it was available on line.
If they didn't want to build in West Village at the same time as East Village just say that, don't do up the cost analysis attributing it all to the project.
If they think the project would hog too much of the land needed to collect the future taxes, say that.
The big thing for me about the approach to CNext, is that CSEC wanted us to look at ALL of the benefits, for the entire West Village, including all of the cleanup and future development. But, apparently it's not fair to look at ALL of the costs. Smart people can differentiate between the costs directly tied to CNext, and those that are indirect/less fair to assign. As taxpayers, the total bill is a lot more important.
Council was appreciative that the CNext proposal kicked them into gear to examine the reclamation of the area in more depth. It has always been a back-burner thing, with a framework for a long-term plan there - but not much thought about getting from current state to development ready.
As for timelines, I think it's mighty rich to accuse the city of dragging their feet on any of this. They have always set reasonable deadlines for when the work would be completed, and met them. It's been a decade of vagueness from King & Co. I'm glad that both the Mayor and City Manager have publicly stated the deadline for this to be dealt with by this council - the Flames have nobody to blame but themselves - the ball is 100% in their court right now.
As usual, the politicians seem to face a no-win scenario here, as people will always find a reason to complain. I think they handled it well, obviously others disagree. IMO there are lots of people that just like to bitch about everything gov't does, usually without suggesting any valid alternatives.
You bet and I said that. Said they had a plan for West Village and it was available on line.
If they didn't want to build in West Village at the same time as East Village just say that, don't do up the cost analysis attributing it all to the project.
If they think the project would hog too much of the land needed to collect the future taxes, say that.
I think that was always my point.
Did they not say all of those things?
Between the report, and the transcript of the council meeting where it was discussed, I'm pretty sure all of those points were explicitly stated (in addition to other reasonable concerns).
I don't see how council could have even arrived at the conclusions stated without an analysis first?
CHAPTER 3 – CONCLUSIONS
Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation provided Administration with a high-level proposal
consisting of overviews on land use planning, transportation, infrastructure, financing, design, and
suitability as a public fieldhouse of the CalgaryNEXT concept. Administration‟s feasibility analysis of
the concept has highlighted the following conclusions:
1. The design for CalgaryNEXT is innovative and original, and has the potential to provide for a
variety of public and professional sports uses.
2. The transportation and municipal utility infrastructure proposed in the concept makes it clear that
significant costs will be incurred by The City for additional development to support the facility, and
that the estimates rely on the design assumption that both parts of the facility will never be used
concurrently.
3. The capital financing model assumes that a portion of the construction costs and all of the
infrastructure costs will be paid by The City, with no participation by The City in the resulting
operating revenues from the facility. The financing model is not fully aligned with the guiding
principle that public money should be used for public benefit.
4. The proposal would fit within The City‟s debt capacity and debt servicing capacity, but it would
require Council to choose between CalgaryNEXT and other high-priority infrastructure projects,
5. The development timeline for the CalgaryNEXT concept as proposed in the West Village is
extremely long at nine to thirteen years, and it is dominated by the time needed to complete the
remediation of the site prior to commencing any other construction.
In summary, the CalgaryNEXT concept is not feasible in its present form and alternative development
concepts, locations, and financial models should be investigated. Administration‟s recommendations
are that Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation should be given an opportunity to respond to
The City‟s feasibility concerns, and that Administration should work with Calgary Sports and
Entertainment Corporation to investigate other potential locations and financial models for a new
arena/event centre.
I feel like people have been affected by the newspaper headlines written after this meeting. CNext was 'torpedoed' (to borrow a word from a headline) thoughtfully, analytically, meticulously, respectfully, and professionally - by both administration and council. King & Co. are entitled to disagree as they wish (and there are parts of the analysis worthy of debate), but the City went above and beyond in 'showing their work'. I may be wrong, but I don't think Nenshi's snark really picked up until after King seems to have stubbornly buried his head in the sand to all of the analysis and tried to play the spin game first.
Last edited by powderjunkie; 05-16-2017 at 04:13 PM.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
When CalgaryNEXT was proposed in West Village it made it inextricably linked. They can't then be thought of two separate things once that use is introduced into the mix. CalgaryNEXT's configuration and timing had direct impacts on the economics of the area - that's why they are then associated. West Village is a totally different project sans CalgaryNEXT.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
