Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Muta

Ok, this is a comment that grinds my gears. How can you claim it's a 'second rate amateur facility'? Are you talking about the design? If so, did you see the floor plans / sections / elevations? I take it you haven't. Calling this a 'second rate facility' is incredibly short-sighted given the information released to date on it and an insult to the American and Canadian designers that have built up careers designing sports facilities.



You can hate CalgaryNEXT and the presentation of it all you want, you can hate the renderings, you can hate how it was executed by the Flames... but calling it a 'second rate amateur facility' is incredibly disrespectful because CalgaryNEXT pushed the boundaries of new sports design / construction innovation. It is a conjoined facility acting as an anchor for a new city district, and it is unlike anything proposed in the world. You haven't even seen the floor plans, to the proposed amenities in greater detail.



I'd like you to explain your comment if you can. 'Second rate' is such a weird comment to make and I'd like to know how the facility design itself garnered a comment like that. I take it you are an architect and know how to design a better one?

Has anyone seen floor plans, elevations and amenities? I have no doubt a good architect can come up with an awesome design, but all we’ve seen so far is a few not very impressive sketches. If there’s more out there that will blow us away please share.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Muta

My man, the idea was just fine. It still is, and know many people still that believe that as well. The only thing wrong with CalgaryNEXT was it's execution, not the design itself. The design (conceptual, which is what it was), the location... all worked just fine. The presentation was another ballgame, and one that I won't comment on anymore.



I'm not saying all the Stamps problems would be rectified by simply having a roofed stadium. I'm saying it would help attract the casual fan, and several posts have already been made in this thread indicating as such.

And if you think live football is the worst sports to watch, the most profitable league in the world and millions and millions of fans would disagree with you.



Sorry, but it is revolutionary in the design world. Rarely are these facilities built that close together, let alone at the same time.

The idea is fatally flawed. Consider the following:

The city wants a field house. It can spend $200 million on it, and it can be publicly accessible 24/7/365.

The CSEC wants a free stadium, by piggybacking off the field house. That $200 million now goes to a facility the public will be restricted from using from anywhere between 30- ??? days. Because after all, the biggest proponents of this have made it clear they wanna use this facility to lure bigger concerts, monster jam, whatever other big events, so it's difficult to say exactly how many public days will be lost, but the Stamps usage of the facility alone will obviously make it less publicly accessible.

Now, as a taxpayer, is that seriously acceptable to you? Because it's totally unacceptable to me. The CSEC wants a free stadium for the Stamps, and saw this as the path to doing it. Good for them. We shouldn't be so stupid as to capitulate. This is a bad idea, irrespective of the design of it, or the renderings. It's a bad deal for the city, period. Great deal for the CSEC no doubt.

As far as the NFL, it's profitable off the TV deal alone. If you haven't been paying attention the NFL had to change its blackout policies because teams are struggling to meet the NFL mandated ticket sales levels to avoid a blackout. Live gate for the NFL is declining, the TV deal is keeping things humming financially, but even that will be interesting to watch in the next round of deals. The casual fan should be thrilled to see a virtually unbeatable Stamps team right now, but they aren't. You can't seriously thinking moving inside and charging more for the product is going to lure more casuals in than a winning team could? That's a massive stretch. Casual CFL fans are better known as hardcore NFL fans. And they are going to few if any CFL games past September, and definitely not for the playoffs which are on Sundays. So the weather means nothing to them, their preferred product being on at the same time is why they don't care about the CFL past a certain point

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

As long as I've lived here, I've heard the words "world class city" bandied about, as to whether this is such a city, whether it's becoming such a city, and what would need to be done to get there. Well, simply put, Calgary will not be a world class city until the west village has been reclaimed and developed somehow. It's a gaping hole in the metropolitan core. Putting a sports facility there isn't the only solution, but it would certainly do the trick.

The hurdle isn't the high-level concept, it's the cost. If someone can come up with a way to make an arena project there make financial sense, fantastic. I'm not optimistic that such a thing is possible currently or in the foreseeable future.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

As long as I've lived here, I've heard the words "world class city" bandied about, as to whether this is such a city, whether it's becoming such a city, and what would need to be done to get there. Well, simply put, Calgary will not be a world class city until the west village has been reclaimed and developed somehow. It's a gaping hole in the metropolitan core. Putting a sports facility there isn't the only solution, but it would certainly do the trick.

I differ with you on what it would take for Calgary to be "world-class", but building the fieldhouse downtown would provide what to the city, compared to building it in the foothills/university location?

Disregarding the shared use with a pro team. If the fieldhouse was purely a recreation and amateur sports facility, with full-time public availability outside of national/international amateur athletic events, which location is best for it?

If it was downtown, it would be centrally located, developed on a parcel of land that needs to be redeveloped, and is directly accessible from the LRT station. Parking is unclear on how it would work for fieldhouse patrons. Since it's in the downtown area, parking during the daytime is usually charged in the area. However since it's a downtown/inner-city area, housing is of importance, and this complex would take away developable land for residential/commercial buildings. There's already an ARP in place that would have the whole entire area develop into a community itself, but CalgaryNEXT would take away important community districts from the plan.

If the fieldhouse gets developed in the approved location of foothills athletic park, which is literally across the street from the university, it'll redevelop the land that currently houses several recreation facilities, and combine it into one complex. It's relatively central, and is located off the skeletal transportation network. It wouldn't have direct access to the LRT station as CalgaryNEXT does, but it would be served by Banff Trail station, which is within walking distance, and will have an ample amount of space for free parking, with little need for enforcement. (Those parking in area to access university) In fact, it would have more space to develop upon, that it doesn't have to deal with the area constrains of the west village proposal.

And speaking of the university, it would a primary tenant for the facility if it's located in foothills athletic park based off their response in the city's report on CalgaryNEXT.

When you compare the two locations, as well consider the city's vision for the west village area, I feel the fieldhouse is best served in the foothills location. If west village gets built out the way it's intended, I'd argue it would do more in making Calgary "world-class".

[Ozy_Flame]

The first thing I think about with a CalgaryNEXT concept is that a sports district is right next to downtown and a major community hub, basically the equivalent of a major gathering facility that brings citizens together over all things sport.

I'm not claiming that CalgaryNEXT is the Colesium, but I will say that my mind goes immediately to Melbourne, Australia, and the Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Precinct. It is 3 KM east of downtown, and when I was there the Australian Open was happening. I also saw the Melbourne Victory play Sydney FC in the A-League to a fervent crowd. It was simply amazing to be part of a sports district that brought everyone together - many of which worked and lived in the central areas, but does have easy access to the 'burbs.

And I would wager to say Melbourne is a world class city. If it's not, then I'm Peter Pan.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

As long as I've lived here, I've heard the words "world class city" bandied about, as to whether this is such a city, whether it's becoming such a city, and what would need to be done to get there. Well, simply put, Calgary will not be a world class city until the west village has been reclaimed and developed somehow. It's a gaping hole in the metropolitan core. Putting a sports facility there isn't the only solution, but it would certainly do the trick.

The hurdle isn't the high-level concept, it's the cost. If someone can come up with a way to make an arena project there make financial sense, fantastic. I'm not optimistic that such a thing is possible currently or in the foreseeable future.

there's a lot that goes into the consideration of what exemplifies a "world class city"...

not sure if the lack of development in a section of the river valley far from the downtown core is high on that list, considering the scale of development of the core already and now the development of the East Village on top of that...

its always a bit confusing for me about who is buying all these condos with East Village in full swing and University City also ramping up...

If a private developer wants to roll the dice on that area, they are more than welcome to do so. However, the urgency for that massive clean up seems to be of the manufactured variety: "Hurry and clean it up so we can develop it."

The reasons this hasn't happened is that the cost vs the benefit has not swung the pendulum to the clean up side of that ledger...And i suspect that it will sit dormant for at least another 15 years. We'll see how it goes...

[Mr.Coffee]

Can someone please explain what it means to be a world class city or why it matters? Who cares? These questions have never been properly answered because it doesn’t matter and nobody cares.

Meanwhile Calgary is still top 5 liveable cities in the world without having to hold the citizens hostage for a new sports building. So let’s pretend someone does care, or somehow it means something to somebody in Calgary that they live in a world class city, I would think they do already?

Also unanswered and asked multiple times, why does this thing need to be $550MM? Nobody can answer this either. What do they plan on building with, gold?

[Passe La Puck]

Is New York a world class city? Parts of it are a dump.
Is Boston a world class city? Parts of it are a dump.
Is Paris a world class city? Parts of it are a dump.

The West Village less of a dump than many parts in those above cities. What is a world class city anyways? High population and high tourism? Something else?

[spuzzum]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What would the indoor stadium be used for?

Opening and Closing ceremonies.... hockey games might be cool. Heck, if it is big enough, ski jumping.

[spuzzum]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

Is New York a world class city? Parts of it are a dump.
Is Boston a world class city? Parts of it are a dump.
Is Paris a world class city? Parts of it are a dump.

The West Village less of a dump than many parts in those above cities. What is a world class city anyways? High population and high tourism? Something else?

A world class city combines all factors to rate it as a world class city for that year or decade. Health care, education, jobs, real estate cost, tourism, beauty, general location / weather, "happiness" of the local population. And anywhere a Walmart is built.

[corporatejay]

The phrase "world-class" has lost all meaning.

Canada has for sure 1 (Toronto) and maybe 3 "world class cities" and they aren't world class because of sky dome, the big O, or Bc place.

[Flash Walken]

Is Toronto really a 'world class' city?

When people outside of Canada think to themselves "what's a world class city" does Toronto really come up? Even in the top 20?

It seems to me that across all criteria, across all cities and countries and continents, world class cities have one thing in common:

Population density.

There are obvious counter points to that like say Los Angeles, except I think LA is kind of a sharthole, and it's conglomerates that make up LA county is a big part of the appeal. I'm willing to say it's an exception to the rule, but I would argue the draw from overseas is largely the association of what LA is in popular culture more than it is Wilshire or Pomona. The best parts of LA are the densest, not places like the valley.

Even though Vancouver only has ~700k residents, it's the density of the city itself, not White Rock or ladner or Coquitlam that is the draw. It's things to do per square km.

Berlin, London, hong Kong, Seoul, tokyo, Mumbai, Cairo, Paris, New York, Athens, Istanbul, etc.

From this perspective it's going to take a hell of a stadium to bring Calgary in that tier or even the tier below it.

Coming from a place like Vancouver and landing in Calgary...it's just not that impressive. Fine place to grow up, have kids, get old etc. Things to do, people to see, but downtown is dead after 7pm and it takes an hour drive to go anywhere or see anyone.

The world class conversation just screams picking at people's inferiority complex. I feel like it's actually pretty insulting to characterize the arena as making the city better.

It's one step removed from saying there is nothing to do in Calgary without the flames.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

The phrase "world-class" has lost all meaning.

Canada has for sure 1 (Toronto) and maybe 3 "world class cities" and they aren't world class because of sky dome, the big O, or Bc place.

Toronto is not world class, except in the minds of some Torontonians and whoever is the mayor at the time. I don't really think Boston is either, nothing really stands out, they have not even had an Olympic games there. So we top them on mountains, quality of life and Olympics hosted. Its certainly North America class if your into sports, but world class, not really.

I would limit the US "world class" cities to DC, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Maybe LA and Miami, but thats it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Toronto is not world class, except in the minds of some Torontonians and whoever is the mayor at the time. I don't really think Boston is either, nothing really stands out, they have not even had an Olympic games there. So we top them on mountains, quality of life and Olympics hosted. Its certainly North America class if your into sports, but world class, not really.

I would limit the US "world class" cities to DC, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Maybe LA and Miami, but thats it.

Hey great post.

I don't think hosting an.olympics 30 years ago means squat to world class or not. For example Lilihammer (am I even spelling that right?).

North American class is a great way of phrasing it.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Coming from a place like Vancouver and landing in Calgary...it's just not that impressive. Fine place to grow up, have kids, get old etc. Things to do, people to see, but downtown is dead after 7pm and it takes an hour drive to go anywhere or see anyone.

For the yellow, maybe you could say that 15 years ago, but that's not really the case anymore. Maybe the core business area may not be that busy, but the urban areas like Stephen Ave, 17th Ave, 4th street, and nearby areas like Kensington have plenty of people out and about on the weekend nights.

For the red, if you're driving from the northwest end of the city to the southeast end, or Airdrie to Okotoks, sure. But that line is a hyperbole since commuting by car is fairly straightforward and efficient in this city. With how big the city is, it's no different than anywhere else. Driving from west end of metro Vancouver to the east wouldn't be any different.

[nik-]

you should be banned for that yellow font

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by nik-

you should be banned for that yellow font

I didn't think it would look that brutal when I posted it, but it's staying now.

[Mr.Coffee]

Wrong thread

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Hey great post.

I don't think hosting an.olympics 30 years ago means squat to world class or not. For example Lilihammer (am I even spelling that right?).

North American class is a great way of phrasing it.

NA class is interesting idea.
Purely anecdotal, but since moving to Chicago area, have chatted with probably 100 people about moving here from Montreal. Maybe 40% suggested Montreal was the one city in Canada they would love to visit. Several talked about hoping to visit the Canadian rockies one day (without reference to Calgary), a few talked Toronto or Vancouver.
A city like Montreal, littered from one end to the other with crumbling infrastructure, is a very long way from world class, but I'll bet it ranks high in North American class destination talk.

[Strange Brew]

Yeah destination spots and "world class" are maybe two different things. New Orleans, Vegas, San Diego and Orlando (for families) are some of the best places to visit in North America but not necessarily on a list of many people's world class cities.