[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[Rando]

Originally Posted by jayswin

So then does Muta's point about needing to replace because it's behind on code really mean anything? Like is it potentially unsafe?

nm second part answered above.

Potentially, maybe, sorta, but not really. Plenty of old buildings don't meet modern standards. The Saddledome isn't anywhere close to be unsafe.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by jayswin

So then does Muta's point about needing to replace because it's behind on code really mean anything? Like is it potentially unsafe?

nm second part answered above.

No. There wouldn’t really be anything holding the FD or engineers back from deeming it unsafe if they had reason to. They don’t because it isn’t unsafe.

But it would likely be more expensive to extensively renovate than build new. Plus the roof sucks.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Can you explain to a laymen how a building that encloses 19000 people doesn't meet current fire code ratings but is allowed to enclose 19000 people over a hundred times a year?


How does that annoucment go? "Okay, so we finished our inspection and you don't pass....buuuut because it would be bad if three professional sports teams had nowhere to play, you can just not worry about not passing. Just make sure no fires!!!".

A lot of stuff is grandfathered in; new codes roll out every ~5 years, so it would be pretty tough to retrofit every building to every new code standard.

If there are serious life-safety issues, they would be addressed, but if say the exiting width of a type D building changed from 6.1mm/person to 6.6mm/person, they couldn't really expect buildings to then adjust all their corridors/doors to fit that new standard.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by jayswin

So then does Muta's point about needing to replace because it's behind on code really mean anything? Like is it potentially unsafe?

nm second part answered above.

It doesn't inherently mean it's unsafe.
Typically no longer meeting code wouldn't, in itself, be a reason for decommissioning a building, but it could certainly be used as one reason among others; especially if they building's owners/tenants were already motivated to get something new built.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

It doesn't inherently mean it's unsafe.
Typically no longer meeting code wouldn't, in itself, be a reason for decommissioning a building, but it could certainly be used as one reason among others; especially if they building's owners/tenants were already motivated to get something new built.

Makes sense why Muta mentioned it, then.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

r/TooAfraidToAsk

Why do stadiums/arenas only last 35 years or so, whereas other types of big buildings last much longer?

Regular businesses move office buildings all the time and they also work renovations into their lease agreements. So even though a building may stand for a long time they will lose prime tenants if they do not renovate in a meaningful way (most companies do not own their own building).

New buildings and facilities also impact the product on the ice by attracting players and improving the training environment for teams. A big example of this is Mark Cuban buying the Dallas Mavericks and building them premier practice facilities, upgrading their jets, locker rooms, among other things. It's really changed the franchise around. The same can be said about the Toronto Raptors investing into the ACC and into the construction of their practice facilities. Facilities are not the only or even one of the biggest reason but it certainly helps.

This also applies to regular people and businesses. Some of the big attractions for working in Silicon Valley for tech companies such as Google and Apple are all the amenities (free gym, food, parks, lunch rooms, etc.). Players are not much different than regular employees in that they will consider non-salary related things such as the environment and atmosphere at work when choosing a job - especially if they are in demand.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Makes sense why Muta mentioned it, then.

Is he some shill for big architecture or something?

[14]

I just sent my Council member, Evan Wooley, a message to vote for the proposal on Monday. I did it through the Calgary.ca City website. You can contact all council members this way.

I suggest all of you in Calgary do the same. Communicate your opinion.

Took about 2 minutes.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by 14

I just sent my Council member, Evan Wooley, a message to vote for the proposal on Monday. I did it through the Calgary.ca City website. You can contact all council members this way.

I suggest all of you in Calgary do the same. Communicate your opinion.

Took about 2 minutes.

Good plan. But I'm not sure Wooley will have time to read it. A week seems too little.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by 14

I just sent my Council member, Evan Wooley, a message to vote for the proposal on Monday. I did it through the Calgary.ca City website. You can contact all council members this way.

I suggest all of you in Calgary do the same. Communicate your opinion.

Took about 2 minutes.

Link?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Link?

https://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/P...ouncillor.aspx

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

It’s entirely worse than the Saddledome. Three times I’ve been to a game there. Bathrooms were somehow worse. If I’m building a new arena as a business owner, than bigger bathrooms = more beer/food sales. Saddledome is a great place to watch hockey, it’s just dated. I’m excited about a new arena, and adding a modern touch to some of the flaws the Dome presented, but just having new versions of the same old experience isn’t going to do it for me. Honestly, if you built an indoor plus 15 from the Saddledome to the Cowboys Casino, we’d already be ahead of Rogers Place IMO.

Let’s blow Edmonton out of the water on this new arena, like we do everything else. Go Calgary.

Bathroom design got cut when costs escalated and the city didn’t want to kick in more money. The original bathrooms were hilariously bad. Some improvements have made them a little better. But that’s the risk of the city being involved.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Weitz

But that’s the risk of the city realizing they got bent over after the fact.

fyp

[GGG]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

It really is new money and a new commitment.

Also, the Flames Foundation is not just amateur sport, but is devoted to health and wellness, education, and amateur and grassroots sports, which I do not expect to deviate or change.

Are they continuing to make the existing rent payment to the Saddledome foundation? If not then this really replaces that component.

It’s similar to continuing the existing property tax subsidy of the flames in the dome is continued in the new arena. The flames not paying property tax is not a new subsidy.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

Is he some shill for big architecture or something?

Haha don't worry dude, I'm used to this stuff. There's always someone ready to attack me in this thread, even though my credentials were verified by the mods long ago. Difference is now, I just don't care anymore. I love arena discussion and all things development, but some people just love living in the past.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Poster

If I have to do the math, they are hiding it. Spell it out for us.

If I have to spell the word, they are hiding it. Sum it up for us.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

a couple years back I went to a couple of concerts within a span of two weeks, first at the Saddledome and the other at Rogers Place. at the Dome with its crap acoustics, everything sounded like muddy ass, the floor was sticky and my seat had dried xenovomit on it, and half my time on the concourse was spent pinned between the wall and a pickup truck.



it's been frequently said here that Rogers Place is overrated. but the act I went to see there didn't bother with Calgary, because as with most big tours they wouldn't even be able to set up in the Dome. the sound was much more clear, everything was cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing, my sight-line was better compared to what the equivalent would have been back home, and the concourse was actually wide enough that I didn't have to physically touch too many Edmontonians.



you're free to believe it's all the same, but I'd wager that most people who go to events frequently at both their home and out of town arenas will be able to come up with a big list of differences that matter.

This is an awful take.

There is nothing bad about the dome from a pure accoustic perspective. It's not the Big 4 which is hot garbage. It's about the roof.

Arena tours fly most/all of the rigging, the roof of the dome doesn't allow for that. That dictates that the concert setup is largely free standing, like one would see at a stadium. Those economics are different than an arena tour. Put simply, you don't budget for a free standing setup for an arena tour. Thus most large ARENA tours bypass Calgary.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you interested in discussing this rationally?

Here is a good example.

We are in Lloydminister and gas stations are on either side of the boarder. Saskatchewan has PST and the federal Carbon tax. Alberta doesnt.

Gas on each side of the street is $1 per litre because the station on the Sask side has to price match or no one will go there. If I fill up on the Saskatchewan side who is paying the Carbon tax and pst. Me or the gas station?

The interesting question to me then is: "Why is there a gas station on the Saskatchewan side at all?" Was it built at a time of no tax differential?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by SebC

The interesting question to me then is: "Why is there a gas station on the Saskatchewan side at all?" Was it built at a time of no tax differential?

In fact, why do people shop for anything with sales tax on the Sask side?

[troutman]

Facebook friend wrote this letter - some good points:

Just sent this letter in. Remember folks, you only have until Friday at noon to have your feedback on the arena deal added to the record and actually considered by council (hah).

To His Worship Mayor Nenshi, Councillor Woolley, and whomever else it may concern,

I'm writing to provide my feedback on the proposed fundamentals of the Victoria Park Event Centre. First of all, I'd like to express my gratitude to Councillor Woolley for his motion to extend the period of public engagement for this project. As was rightly pointed out, the amount of time provided to the public is, frankly, insultingly short for a deal of this scope. When Council unanimously approved a motion on March 4 (again moved by Councillor Woolley) requesting that administration develop a plan for "public feedback on the terms and conditions of any potential deal," it's hard to imagine that four days to review the deal was what they had in mind. Yet here we are.

The feedback I'd most like to provide is that in my opinion, there is not enough information released to date for the public to provide meaningful feedback. Statements from your worship and other members of council clearly state that this is "a good deal for Calgary" and that the city will see benefits, and according to the City's website, that the City will receive a "return on investment," but the numbers provided are underwhelming at best. A $400 million return on a $275 million investment over 30 years is an ROI of approximately 1.1% for the city—assuming there are no cost overruns on a half-billion dollar project, that revenue estimates are accurate, and ignoring that items like property tax revenue from retail tenants could be generated from investments other than an event centre. There are countless studies in recent years suggesting that arenas and event centres never deliver the promised economic stimulus, and Calgarians deserve a better answer as to why this deal will be different.

The community benefits listed are also overstated, as they imply a situation where the Flames will absolutely leave if we do not build this centre now. That is a highly questionable position, at least based on the information the public has currently. Not to deny that a prominent sports team and athletic facilities contribute to community identity and health, but to list those as benefits of this project is to imply that we don't currently have them.

Based on those criticisms alone, it is difficult to see how this is the best deal the city could receive, and I would urge council to either do a better job of explaining the benefits, or listen to the many, many frustrated Calgarians who are asking you to turn down this project. I have read other letters that other citizens have publicly posted listing a variety of other concerns, and I encourage you to take those concerns seriously.

However, given the dialogue to date and the rushed feedback period, I assume it is very likely that this project will go forward, regardless of the feedback Council receives. That being the case, I would like to respond to the question of what I'd like to see in an event centre.

Given that significant public funds are going into the centre, it would be ideal to see the centre made accessible to all Calgarians. Mandating that a certain percentage of seats to all events over the life of the agreement be allocated to heavily discounted or free tickets for low-income Calgarians would go a long way to ensuring this public accessibility.

If the goal is to create an entertainment district, one thing that has been lacking for Calgary's film community is smaller screening spaces. A range of screening rooms from 50-100 seat rooms through 500-600 seat rooms could address a longstanding gap and benefit the dozens of film festivals that take place in Calgary every year.

Since this is an event centre and not a sports arena, it would be nice if the public support programs went to a wider range of groups than just community sports organizations, as there are many other community organizations that are in need of such support. If that isn't possible, building in some assurance that these funds will support such organizations in a wide range of communities would be useful, with a specific focus on marginalized groups, people with disabilities, immigrant and refugee youth, and indigenous communities.

The city should clarify and quantify the value of the lands involved in this deal, specifically the Enoch Sales property and the Victoria Park bus barns, and measures should be taken to ensure that the City receives adequate compensation for any transfers of these lands, which could include caps on the differential between the 2018 land value of the Enoch property and its value at the time of sale, or other such measures. It is also vital that these land deals do not impair the city's ability to build the Green Line on time, on schedule, and with a routing that meets the needs of commuters.

Again, it is my hope that Council will either reject this deal, or will better explain the benefits aside from a marginal and questionable return on investment, and claims of economic development that go against a wide and established body of study questioning the benefits of arenas and event centres. And I thank Councillor Woolley for his attempt to allow for actual, considered feedback on this proposal, in a motion that I was disappointed to see the rest of council reject.

Sincerely,