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

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You suggested that my idea wouldn't work because a feasibility study had already been done that showed it wasn't feasible. But the study was for an entirely different concept. Which makes it pretty much irrelevant as an attempt to dismiss the idea. It's fine to say that a feasibility study was done for a roof, and it didn't make sense. That is useful information. What I take issue with is you dismissing the idea based on an irrelevant study.

It's like saying we can't afford an underground green line, and a study has shown this, but dismissing that we could maybe afford an above grade one.

I'm not trolling, I'm trying to figure out how you don't see this.

Sorry, chief, but it still relates, and isn't irrelevant. Lots of options were considered in the study, possibly even the options you brought up. With a roof, it's simply not feasible. I brought it up because you were talking about what to do with that space, and I know for fact that other uses have already been discussed - hence the study.

Your options were for outside; fine. The study still relates, since the options the Stampede has explored were indoor. If they thought exploring outdoor options were feasible, they would have done that too, but they didn't.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm trying to figure out how you don't see this.

Doing a feasibility study on the Grandstand would imply being able to host more events in spite of inclement or crappy weather. If there was a feasibility study to convert the existing Grandstand into an outdoor facility for multiple sports, then either it doesn't exist or unmentioned here.

It is relevant to the current discussion, because obviously there was a reason for exploring the concept of expanding its design to include a roof. And i doubt moving the Stampede from July to January was the reason for that.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Muta

Sorry, chief, but it still relates, and isn't irrelevant. Lots of options were considered in the study, possibly even the options you brought up. With a roof, it's simply not feasible. I brought it up because you were talking about what to do with that space, and I know for fact that other uses have already been discussed - hence the study.

Your options were for outside; fine. The study still relates, since the options the Stampede has explored were indoor. If they thought exploring outdoor options were feasible, they would have done that too, but they didn't.

Or maybe they just hadn't thought of that, or it was when Calgary Next was proposed, or any other number of reasons? Dismissing it because a study was never done on it doesn't mean it isn't feasible, it means it hasn't been looked at.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Or maybe they just hadn't thought of that, or it was when Calgary Next was proposed, or any other number of reasons? Dismissing it because a study was never done on it doesn't mean it isn't feasible, it means it hasn't been looked at.

I wouldn't be so sure. The Stampede did a study to see if it was possible to make it an indoor venue. If they thought there was potential to do an outdoor venue, they would have included that in the study as well. That's how these things work.

They can definitely do one for an outdoor facility, sure, if they see value in that... but until they do, it's obviously not a high priority / worth the investment.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Muta

Sorry, chief, but it still relates, and isn't irrelevant. Lots of options were considered in the study, possibly even the options you brought up. With a roof, it's simply not feasible. I brought it up because you were talking about what to do with that space, and I know for fact that other uses have already been discussed - hence the study.

Your options were for outside; fine. The study still relates, since the options the Stampede has explored were indoor. If they thought exploring outdoor options were feasible, they would have done that too, but they didn't.

You said...

Originally Posted by Muta

I know for a fact that a feasibility study was conducted for that reason only a couple years ago - to build a roof between the grandstand / infield track, with modern modifications all-around. The cost was simply too prohibitive to do anything like that; you may as well have built a completely new facility for that price.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

You said...

...and? What's your point? I'm talking about uses for an indoor facility.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Muta

...and? What's your point? I'm talking about uses for an indoor facility.

And Fuzz is talking about uses for an outdoor facility.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

And Fuzz is talking about uses for an outdoor facility.

Cool - maybe they explored the idea of football / soccer / other sports inside. Point still stands.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Muta

Cool - maybe they explored the idea of football / soccer / other sports inside. Point still stands.

"Maybe they explored this idea that there is no evidence they did, so my point is valid"? Sure ,ok. Does this study exist somewhere so we could look at it?

[Fuzz]

Anyway.... I was curious what this would look like:






This should be to scale. So you'd have to have the rodeo gates under the east stands. I don't know how feasible that is, or if they would work elsewhere, or as a temporary structure. But it does illustrate that there is room for a track to run through.


Just made another with it transparent, you can see there is plenty of space for the rodeo field/Chuckwagon starts. I think they should do a feasibility study, I like it.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

"Maybe they explored this idea that there is no evidence they did, so my point is valid"? Sure ,ok. Does this study exist somewhere so we could look at it?

LOL... you just can't help yourself, can you? And nope, sorry - the study isn't available to you, or to the public for that matter. It's a private study, surely you understand what that entails. What a ludicrous question.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Muta

LOL... you just can't help yourself, can you? And nope, sorry - the study isn't available to you, or to the public for that matter. It's a private study, surely you understand what that entails. What a ludicrous question.

It's a ludicrous question to ask if a study is available? Come on, really? Am I just supposed to magically know which studies are public and which are not? Asking is not ludicrous, it's the opposite of that. But ok, thanks for all the "inside info". It's been VERY helpful in proving that this idea is unfeasible.

[Rhettzky]

I feel like you two are very close to coming to an understanding on each others viewpoints here. Maybe just a few more posts!

[Fuzz]

I'll get through to him soon! I once had a similar discussion with a turnip. It took a few hours, but I think eventually it understood.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's a ludicrous question to ask if a study is available? Come on, really? Am I just supposed to magically know which studies are public and which are not? Asking is not ludicrous, it's the opposite of that. But ok, thanks for all the "inside info". It's been VERY helpful in proving that this idea is unfeasible.

Yes, really. Use your head here; why would a private organization release their strategic plans for everyone to see? This isn't the City of Calgary or some other public institution.

As for your idea being unfeasible, it hasn't been bothered to be studied, whereas an indoor option was. Any way you try and spin it, that's the reality of the situation. Complain and conspire all you want, it doesn't change what's already been prioritized and done.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'll get through to him soon! I once had a similar discussion with a turnip. It took a few hours, but I think eventually it understood.

You once argued with a turnip?

Fuzz = the new Shooter McGavin.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'll get through to him soon! I once had a similar discussion with a turnip. It took a few hours, but I think eventually it understood.

You talk to turnips?

"That'll teach 'em to grow faster and more plump".

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Muta

You once argued with a turnip?

Fuzz = the new Shooter McGavin.

Today you made it twice.

[nik-]

roasted ...












... turnips

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Today you made it twice.