[News] Calgary City Council votes 11-4 to approve event centre deal

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

It's only good for 10 years. The city also has the option not to make the land available during those 10 years. So really, it could be viewed as a sweetener that the city offered in negotiations that they never need to come through on. Seems more like CSEC is taking the risk on that particular point.

We'll see.

Flames owners are rich for a reason. They don't miss a trick.

[Rando]

Gotta admit, pretty damn anti-climatic after all these years.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rando

Gotta admit, pretty damn anti-climatic after all these years.

At least its finally moving forward.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

We'll see.

Flames owners are rich for a reason. They don't miss a trick.

True, but it’s not like that property was going to be developed by some mom and pop small business developers. Some very rich developer/development corporation was going to get it one way or another. At least this way guys like Farcas won’t be able to line their pockets to help some other unscrupulous player get the land in the future.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

If the inverted bowl is what we end up with, I think we'll have something pretty unique and cool. I hope we end up with a name that also hits the nostalgic side of things - like for example, the Scotiabank or Rogers Corral. I'd like to see something other than an "Arena" or "Centre" naming convention.

The Big Chief Poke Bowl

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Muta

Well, the city has already built a new bus barns facility, and it's already been paid for: the super-large Stoney CNG Bus Storage and Transit Facility.

https://www.calgary.ca/Transportatio...toneybusgarage

I do agree with you though, that the current bus barns facility in the Rivers District is prime land. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to CSEC that they will do something impressive with that property though; let's see what they propose first. Keep in mind, they'll have to work with CMLC to follow the design guidelines for that area.

ironically, that new bus barn is a P3 development at a cost of 174 million dollars. The private partner is "Plenary Infrastructure Calgary LP is a consortium of Plenary Group (Canada) Ltd. and PCL Investments Canada Inc. Other team members include PCL Construction Management Inc. and Johnson Controls Canada LP."

did not hear a single peep about entering a partnership with a private company about this project which is a design, build, finance and maintain model (DBFM)

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Muta

I do agree with you though, that the current bus barns facility in the Rivers District is prime land. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to CSEC that they will do something impressive with that property though; let's see what they propose first. Keep in mind, they'll have to work with CMLC to follow the design guidelines for that area.

Would CMLC have design guidelines in place preventing CSEC from say, building a new football / MLS field there?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

ironically, that new bus barn is a P3 development at a cost of 174 million dollars. The private partner is "Plenary Infrastructure Calgary LP is a consortium of Plenary Group (Canada) Ltd. and PCL Investments Canada Inc. Other team members include PCL Construction Management Inc. and Johnson Controls Canada LP."

did not hear a single peep about entering a partnership with a private company about this project which is a design, build, finance and maintain model (DBFM)

P3's (Public-Private-Partnerships), or alternatively called DBFMs or DBFs, are becoming a pretty common procurement method across Canada. They're widely used in Ontario. It's still relatively new in Alberta, however, but slowly gaining momentum. Other projects in Calgary include the SW Ring Road and the Calgary Courts Centre. P3's are a way for municipalities / governments to get projects built without having to fund them upfront; they're paid back over, say, 35 years and the private companies design, build, operate and maintain them for the city or government. The consortium teams assume lots of the risk, as well.

If you're suggesting there's nefarious or secretive backstories behind them (I can't tell if you are), it's not like that at all. There's still a regimented selection process because there's public money involved.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Would CMLC have design guidelines in place preventing CSEC from say, building a new football / MLS field there?

That's a good question; I'm not sure about that. I would imagine that type of facility is not in CMLC's plans, but I can't confirm that.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Would CMLC have design guidelines in place preventing CSEC from say, building a new football / MLS field there?

I'm sure if CSEC wanted to buy the land and then pay to build a stadium on it that would be fine. They weren't willing to do that before, so I can't imagine they'd want to do so now that they have an option to buy an expensive piece of land.

That parcel will be getting as many condos as they can get zoned for.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Would CMLC have design guidelines in place preventing CSEC from say, building a new football / MLS field there?

Nah.. I think Foothills Park is the likely destination, although there's a case to be made for the DT West End former Greyhound Terminal site. Remediating the creosote contamination is still a worthy endeavour. Along major transportation/transit routes.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I want to see that inverted bowl happen so bad!
I also absolutely have to get to the Saddledome before it is gone.

Had to look up



That would be brilliant and unique.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Would CMLC have design guidelines in place preventing CSEC from say, building a new football / MLS field there?

The land would have to be rezoned, so yes, the city could block that if it so chooses.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Muta

P3's (Public-Private-Partnerships), or alternatively called DBFMs or DBFs, are becoming a pretty common procurement method across Canada. They're widely used in Ontario. It's still relatively new in Alberta, however, but slowly gaining momentum. Other projects in Calgary include the SW Ring Road and the Calgary Courts Centre. P3's are a way for municipalities / governments to get projects built without having to fund them upfront; they're paid back over, say, 35 years and the private companies design, build, operate and maintain them for the city or government. The consortium teams assume lots of the risk, as well.

If you're suggesting there's nefarious or secretive backstories behind them (I can't tell if you are), it's not like that at all. There's still a regimented selection process because there's public money involved.

my point was that the city has partnered with private companies previously to help build projects and this has been happening for years.

The folks that were up in arms about public funds being used to support private projects were simply unhappy with the Flames getting money and were against the arena, not because of some principled stance to 'not have public monies going to private for profit companies'

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Had to look up



That would be brilliant and unique.

The KY Jelly Intimacy Centre

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Would CMLC have design guidelines in place preventing CSEC from say, building a new football / MLS field there?

Having seen master plan drawings for the Rivers district (here), I don't think that's what CMLC is going for.
I would imagine CSEC will hold off development of that land until the condo market is Calgary rebounds a bit, then build high-end luxury properties.

[Iggy_12]

I hope they let season ticket holders get the chance to keep their seats. Id give an infinite amount of money for mine

[FanIn80]

So have they released any detailed renders of the actual arena yet?

Please tell me we don’t have a city-approved $500M price tag for a vaguely-detailed, but well-lit pedestrian intersection.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I hope we end up with a name that also hits the nostalgic side of things - like for example, the Scotiabank or Rogers Corral. I'd like to see something other than an "Arena" or "Centre" naming convention.

Agree with the second part, but not the first. Personally, I'd prefer letting go of any cowboy or western-themed names. No corrals, barns, saddles, wagons or manure.

[agulati]

Is there a breakdown of who voted how?