Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by pepsifree

if we don't get a margaritaville Spearmint Rhino out of this i'm leaving.

ftfy

[Nammer403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If we don't get a Margaritaville out of this I'm leaving.

I would like an Earl of Sandwich or Shake Shack

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Nammer403

I would like an Earl of Sandwich or Shake Shack

mmmm Shake Shack

[troutman]

Ugh.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

ftfy

I am going to go way out on a limb and say you did not, in fact, fix it for PepsiFree.

I could be way off though.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If we don't get a Margaritaville out of this I'm leaving.

Dave & Buster's or nothing

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Icon

mmmm Shake Shack

I love me some Shake Shack, but we have one here. It is Lil Empire in Bridgeland. Their burgers are fairly close to real thing, dare I say better.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

I haven't seen Edmonton's in person, but the concept currently engages with Olympic way at a human scale; the form is much less monolithic than Rogers Place.
If you read the CMLC Rivers District master plan, Olympic Way is meant to be the main pedestrian thoroughfare between the stampede grounds and the green line train station; I think it even refers to Olympic Way as a "festival street"

I care about this far more than a recognizable roofline.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I will be happy with 'tastefully timeless' in terms of exterior appeal, and it will add to the overall look of the city.



Of course, I also want it to have all of the superior sight-lines for actually watching events that most modern arenas have, with a better layout, and all the modern tech and conveniences, etc., etc., etc., but I do hope it adds an iconic look to the city skyline in a good AND timeless way.


I don't really want an Edmonton arena. I liked it at first, but the more I looked at it (I am no architect, so maybe I am missing something), the less I liked it. I really do think that arena is not going to age well aesthetically over the years.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No, but it probably contributes to peoples's enjoyment for those already living in Calgary. That has value.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Enjoyment for relatively few. The VAST majority of calgarians cannot afford to attend events at the saddle dome, never mind what it will cost to attend something in this place.

And most who can afford to attend a flames game once or twice a season are likely very content with the saddledome

[TheScorpion]

Rogers Place already looks extremely tacky to me.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Corral

Enjoyment for relatively few. The VAST majority of calgarians cannot afford to attend events at the saddle dome, never mind what it will cost to attend something in this place.

And most who can afford to attend a flames game once or twice a season are likely very content with the saddledome

I am living well below the poverty line, but even I can afford to attend events at the Saddledome from time to time. That part of your argument does not hold water.

Signing off again.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Corral

Enjoyment for relatively few. The VAST majority of calgarians cannot afford to attend events at the saddle dome, never mind what it will cost to attend something in this place.

And most who can afford to attend a flames game once or twice a season are likely very content with the saddledome

Boy, you are a grouch.

[JBR]

Originally Posted by Corral

Enjoyment for relatively few. The VAST majority of calgarians cannot afford to attend events at the saddle dome, never mind what it will cost to attend something in this place.

And most who can afford to attend a flames game once or twice a season are likely very content with the saddledome

I would like to see your math.

[Robbob]

I would say the vast majority of Calgarians can afford to attend, but a good portion may not attend because it isn't their jam or would choose to spend their dollars elsewhere.

Tickets through corporate sponsors like Sportcheck and the like do open it up to more people, sure they're not club seats or lower bowl, but it is still a way to be part of the experience if they choose.

I am looking forward to our new arena overload.

[PepsiFree]

As someone who was at least moderately opposed to funding a new arena with taxpayer dollars, I don't really understand what anyone is doing wasting their time complaining now. The ship has sailed, you've been left behind, so you can either catch up and enjoy the journey with everyone else or sit on your little island and keep complaining with nobody around to hear you. If the money is all but spent, I'm gonna go ahead and catch up to the ship.

The value of the stadium itself seems neglible, if you're looking at the value difference between just keeping the saddledome and upgrading to something new. But the big issue is obviously that option A comes with the consequence of losing the Flames. It's a business, remember, and they will go where they can maximize their returns.

If Calgary lost the Flames, we'd instantly become the biggest city in North America without a major sports team. Austin doesn't have one either, but they have a big handful of amateur teams across multiple sports and the kind of cultural reputation any city would be lucky to have. Without the Flames, what's left for Calgary? Nothing much, unfortunately. Maybe one day we'll be something special, but not today. So there's no argument to me that the Flames value isn't tremendous to a city that culturally revolves around the Flames for most of the year. Even if you can't afford to go to games (most can, once a year at least) they're still a valuable part of our life.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I am living well below the poverty line, but even I can afford to attend events at the Saddledome from time to time. That part of your argument does not hold water.

Signing off again.

As a CP user I’m sure you would make those choices. But hundreds of thousands others would not.

You don’t have to be below the poverty line to feel like a trip to the saddledome is a bit too much for your wallet. Particularly if you have to pay for multiple seats ie kids

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Corral

As a CP user I’m sure you would make those choices. But hundreds of thousands others would not.

You don’t have to be below the poverty line to feel like a trip to the saddledome is a bit too much for your wallet. Particularly if you have to pay for multiple seats ie kids

Are most casual users fine with visiting an empty Saddledome? Because the NHL is not okay with any of their teams continuing play in the oldest arena in the League.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Corral]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

As someone who was at least moderately opposed to funding a new arena with taxpayer dollars, I don't really understand what anyone is doing wasting their time complaining now. The ship has sailed, you've been left behind, so you can either catch up and enjoy the journey with everyone else or sit on your little island and keep complaining with nobody around to hear you. If the money is all but spent, I'm gonna go ahead and catch up to the ship.

The value of the stadium itself seems neglible, if you're looking at the value difference between just keeping the saddledome and upgrading to something new. But the big issue is obviously that option A comes with the consequence of losing the Flames. It's a business, remember, and they will go where they can maximize their returns.

If Calgary lost the Flames, we'd instantly become the biggest city in North America without a major sports team. Austin doesn't have one either, but they have a big handful of amateur teams across multiple sports and the kind of cultural reputation any city would be lucky to have. Without the Flames, what's left for Calgary? Nothing much, unfortunately. Maybe one day we'll be something special, but not today. So there's no argument to me that the Flames value isn't tremendous to a city that culturally revolves around the Flames for most of the year. Even if you can't afford to go to games (most can, once a year at least) they're still a valuable part of our life.

What’s left for Calgary without the flames? This pretty much says it all on this debate.

Look I understand why its being funded and built. However this notion that its a benefit for the masses is total bunk

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are most casual users fine with visiting an empty Saddledome? Because the NHL is not okay with any of their teams continuing play in the oldest arena in the League.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Ah but we’re told this isn’t just for the flames. Its going to revitalize Victoria park. Cough cough