I think it's reasonable to have been against the Olympic bid but for this. I didn't support the Olympic bid because of the history of IOC corruption, almost inevitable meteoric cost overruns, and the continuing impact of a ten-day event versus an infrastructure project with a 40-year life span.
(And yes, I understand that the Olympics would have shepherded a whole host of similar infrastructure, but the games themselves come at a substantial cost.)
Plus just putting together the bid is pretty costly considering that there was no guarantee that Calgary would get it.
With an arena, at least you know you are getting something tangible and not just tossing your money at making an expensive proposal that could go nowhere in the end.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I'm sure that's true, and I suppose that's part of what I'm asking. What could they possibly be sneaking by?
And if it's a no for these people, the reveal of any information that's worth "sneaking by" the public would likely just keep them in the "no" camp, so it wouldn't make a difference.
Like in the letter above, the "more information" crowd do not actually seem to want more information. They want a different deal. So instead of trying to delay the vote under false pretenses, just say you don't like it (not you, specifically, Mass).
I’d like to see the IRR calc with all assumptions that the city uses.
Some commentary and more information on the cost of the sole source land sale to the flames and how market valuation will be done on those properties.
I’d also like to see the full cost breakdown in a similar manner and using similar assumptions for when they had the admins kill CalgaryNext and the election Arena offer. Right now the flames and the city are presenting the same math and leaving it to the public to decide if any different ways at looking it are required.
The city should be the ones saying that the 130ish million in taxation benefits should be being invested in infrastructure required to make the area great and not considered a side benefit of an Arena.
So I finally actually watched the promo videos for Rossetti's inverted bowl design, and there is a prominent clip of the Flames walking onto an ice surface midway through the sales pitch video. Kinda wish they would have used more CGI shots in a hockey alignment rather than basketball to get a better feel on how it would seem.
I hadn't seen this mentioned, but more recently Rossetti also posted a short video of an inverted bowl feasibility demo that they set up outside their head office in Detroit.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Well, it would be nice to see what the provisions are if the CSEC doesn't fulfill their part of the deal.
For example, say the Flames leave after 5 years despite the 35 year promise. Does the City get anything? The CSEC can also get additional revenue after the initial ticket sales through its scalper system, is that included in the 2% that the City gets back?
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
Seems like an interesting concept for sight lines, but it also adds a lot of levels and concourses with only 3-4 rows allotted to each of them. The cost per seat could be higher than building a standard set of rows aligned to one upper concourse.
I'll be curious to see if they can achieve that for $550M with 19,000 seats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I hadn't seen this mentioned, but more recently Rossetti also posted a short video of an inverted bowl feasibility demo that they set up outside their head office in Detroit.
Well, it would be nice to see what the provisions are if the CSEC doesn't fulfill their part of the deal.
For example, say the Flames leave after 5 years despite the 35 year promise. Does the City get anything?
Presumably the City would issue a claim for damages arising from breach of contract.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
I hadn't seen this mentioned, but more recently Rossetti also posted a short video of an inverted bowl feasibility demo that they set up outside their head office in Detroit.
So the row of seats moves forward and backward? That looks like it could be awkward and expensive...
Seems like an interesting concept for sight lines, but it also adds a lot of levels and concourses with only 3-4 rows allotted to each of them. The cost per seat could be higher than building a standard set of rows aligned to one upper concourse.
I'll be curious to see if they can achieve that for $550M with 19,000 seats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
So the row of seats moves forward and backward? That looks like it could be awkward and expensive...
Yeah, it could be. But Rossetti also claims that because the overall design of the structure is much smaller—requiring less steel, and smaller cranes—this would also considerably reduce building costs. They also posit that the arena is faster to build because of a 30% reduction of the footprint and a 22% reduction in material, all of which contributes to a lower overall cost.
Who knows if it actually works out like this.
Also to consider is that if the sightlines are all superior to traditional arenas, and if there is less distinction in viewing quality from top-to-bottom in the arena, then potentially the gap in cost to the consumer between premium seats and those in the upper tiers is greatly reduced as a result. This could mean an overall increase in ticket prices for what were once more traditionally cheaper seats.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
By this letter, I am asking that the negotiating team make a formal request to Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) for an extension of the engagement period and provide a response to this request to Council by Tuesday, July 30th, 2019 at 1:00pm. I propose that Administration bring forward the Council directed engagement plan (approved by Council on March 4th, 2019) to the September 5th, 2019 Event Centre Assessment Committee Meeting and that final consideration be brought to the September 30th, 2019 Combined Meeting of Council to make a final decision
So the row of seats moves forward and backward? That looks like it could be awkward and expensive...
my impression of the model was that it was done for demonstration purposes as opposed to actually moving when built.
In order to convince investors, it was my feeling that you show them a 'typical' arena design and how the inverted bowl compares.... the mechanism that allows for the shift is a simple way of showing 'before and after'...
it purpose to show that it is a fair simple concept that works within the existing framework of typical arena construction
of course, i could be wrong too...but it makes no sense to trumpet how much better the inverted bowl approaches is but then have the option to switch between the two configurations
my impression of the model was that it was done for demonstration purposes as opposed to actually moving when built.
In order to convince investors, it was my feeling that you show them a 'typical' arena design and how the inverted bowl compares.... the mechanism that allows for the shift is a simple way of showing 'before and after'...
it purpose to show that it is a fair simple concept that works within the existing framework of typical arena construction
of course, i could be wrong too...but it makes no sense to trumpet how much better the inverted bowl approaches is but then have the option to switch between the two configurations
I think you're right. I had to keep the sound off but I believe they were demonstrating the room behind the seats per row.
“You’ll see plans — more than renderings, actual plans — in the new year,” said Michael Brown, president and CEO of the Calgary Municipal Land Corp.
“Often times people will do the pretty pictures and then have people choose the pretty pictures, but the way we choose to do it as a corporation is the reverse. We establish a budget price and then we design within that budget price.”
The same process was followed during the creation of the $245-million Central Library, he said.
Quote:
“We want to include people from the arts community to ensure what we build is, frankly, not a spaceship dropped in the middle of downtown like Edmonton did,” said Davison.
Last edited by sureLoss; 07-25-2019 at 03:39 PM.
The Following 26 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
So the row of seats moves forward and backward? That looks like it could be awkward and expensive...
Each seat moves independently. In the video, the two people just happen to move at the same time.
Functionally, I think it would be similar to the Loge seating they have in Edmonton.
Spoiler!
You can see in the photo, the people in the front row all have a small ledge in front on them and the walkway is behind. I'm not sure if the seats in Edmonton are just normal chairs or if they're attached to a pivot point and swing into place. Either would likely work. Chairs would likely be cheaper in the long run.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
“We want to include people from the arts community to ensure what we build is, frankly, not a spaceship dropped in the middle of downtown like Edmonton did,” said Davison.
This does not receive enough emphasis.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
