Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[Reggie Dunlop]

Doesn't really fit here, but didn't know where else to put it..

https://twitter.com/user/status/1407872099205582855

[Mull]

Expect and update on July 5

https://livewirecalgary.com/2021/06/...8UeN-0Mzz2mQPM

And this has me once again feeling sour grapes towards the Arena deal

One of the items was a reconsideration motion on a non-monetary matter. It’s understood the item that was reconsidered was the appointment of the Calgary Municipal Land Corporation as the project manager.

Clare LePan, the CMLC’s vice-president of marketing and communication said Thursday that there wasn’t much to share. She said she couldn’t comment on discussions between the two contributing parties.

“As it currently stands, the project’s still on hold. We’re still supporting those discussions,” LePan sa

And Farkas making sense on the one issue I align with him on.

“In this town, a deal is a deal and a handshake means something. Spending even more taxpayer money to bail out the project is not an option. Calgarians deserve transparency with their money. Calgarians are owed what they were promised at the original price tag,” Farkas said in the release.

“Regardless of where they stood on the arena deal, Calgarians on all sides deserve to know what’s going on. Those who supported the deal want to know that it will get built, and those who opposed it are demanding that Council be accountable with the spending of public money.”

[Jimmy Stang]

Is there any benefit to Calgarians to have CMLC removed from this project? They've done a good job with the East Village, library, etc. and I fear that their (rumoured) removal will be a detriment to how the surrounding area develops.

Between this and a fresh bag of taxpayer cash, this almost seems worse in the long run. Although both feel pretty greasy.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Is there any benefit to Calgarians to have CMLC removed from this project? They've done a good job with the East Village, library, etc. and I fear that their (rumoured) removal will be a detriment to how the surrounding area develops.

Between this and a fresh bag of taxpayer cash, this almost seems worse in the long run. Although both feel pretty greasy.

I don't know if this view is supported by evidence, but removing CMCL seems like removing another firewall to protect the tax payers from Flames influence into the design/incorporation into the area, etc

But could be just sour grapes

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Is there any benefit to Calgarians to have CMLC removed from this project? They've done a good job with the East Village, library, etc. and I fear that their (rumoured) removal will be a detriment to how the surrounding area develops.

Not if the Flames were at all serious with their disaster of a proposal for CalgaryNext.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Not if the Flames were at all serious with their disaster of a proposal for CalgaryNext.

I still don’t understand how literally anyone involved in the CalgaryNext proposal had a job - the next day.

How do you “announce” a plan to spend a billion dollars of another organizations money, without ever involving that other organization (in this case the city), and possibly keep your job? That doesn’t even go into how terrible of a design/location that was.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I still don’t understand how literally anyone involved in the CalgaryNext proposal had a job - the next day.

How do you “announce” a plan to spend a billion dollars of another organizations money, without ever involving that other organization (in this case the city), and possibly keep your job? That doesn’t even go into how terrible of a design/location that was.

I'm with you on that.

That was...that was a debacle of monumental proportions.

I remember watching that Press Conference and being excited...and then that excitement ebbed at the renderings, which is okay, they're not complete despite having a decade or more to get it together...

But when the Financial slide came up...it became immediately evident that this was a drunken 'back of the napkin' nonsense pipe-dream. What a boondoggle.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I still don’t understand how literally anyone involved in the CalgaryNext proposal had a job - the next day.

How do you “announce” a plan to spend a billion dollars of another organizations money, without ever involving that other organization (in this case the city), and possibly keep your job? That doesn’t even go into how terrible of a design/location that was.

May he RIP, but Ken King's hands were all over that. I personally don't think he did much for the team during the last decade.

Removing CMLC is a huge below to actually getting a great project. I suspect we will see an extremely sterile surrounding area now. Coupled with the cost increases, the arena will likely be aesthetically disappointing as well.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I still don’t understand how literally anyone involved in the CalgaryNext proposal had a job - the next day.

How do you “announce” a plan to spend a billion dollars of another organizations money, without ever involving that other organization (in this case the city), and possibly keep your job? That doesn’t even go into how terrible of a design/location that was.

I kind of figure the CalgaryNEXT proposal could only exist for one of two reasons:

1. The conspiracy theory it was never meant to be built but to get leverage with the City. Although I never really understood how that was supposed to work- anchor the negotiation high?
2. Pure entitlement from the Flames organization of what the City "owes" them- rich billionaires hanging out with too many American Sport club owners who get what they want from Cities. The fact they seemed genuinely surprised and offended (i.e. Burke's rant) they got push back on the proposal is frustrating as heck

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I still don’t understand how literally anyone involved in the CalgaryNext proposal had a job - the next day.

How do you “announce” a plan to spend a billion dollars of another organizations money, without ever involving that other organization (in this case the city), and possibly keep your job? That doesn’t even go into how terrible of a design/location that was.

as an Edmonton guy I remember the shots ken king took at Edmonton about arena negotiations, how public they were, how long they took and how the flames would do it the right way.

boy they sure showed us.
man that was a lot of years ago.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

as an Edmonton guy I remember the shots ken king took at Edmonton about arena negotiations, how public they were, how long they took and how the flames would do it the right way.

boy they sure showed us.
man that was a lot of years ago.

Not defending KK or how public Calgary's negotiation is/was vs Edmonton, but I dislike the Edmonton deal a lot, even with Edmonton having more to gain by relocating the arena to downtown.

I am very glad we waited and have the deal we have now compared to something like Edmonton, even if I was an anti-arena person.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Mull

Not defending KK or how public Calgary's negotiation is/was vs Edmonton, but I dislike the Edmonton deal a lot, even with Edmonton having more to gain by relocating the arena to downtown.

I am very glad we waited and have the deal we have now compared to something like Edmonton, even if I was an anti-arena person.

Oh I won't disgree edmonton got bent over.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

Oh I won't disgree edmonton got bent over.

No dinner, no movie either.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

as an Edmonton guy I remember the shots ken king took at Edmonton about arena negotiations, how public they were, how long they took and how the flames would do it the right way.

boy they sure showed us.
man that was a lot of years ago.

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

Oh I won't disgree edmonton got bent over.

So what is your point?

Edmonton got bent over, and Calgary is proceeding in what appears to be the right way, or at least reasonably so.

So yeah, you really burned KK there.

[GioforPM]

Going public isn’t an uncommon PR move. The hope is that the project gets traction and inevitability, which then influences the negotiations.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So what is your point?

Edmonton got bent over, and Calgary is proceeding in what appears to be the right way, or at least reasonably so.

So yeah, you really burned KK there.

How much $ did each city put forth?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So what is your point?

Edmonton got bent over, and Calgary is proceeding in what appears to be the right way, or at least reasonably so.

So yeah, you really burned KK there.

Wasn't trying to defend the oiler deal.

My point was king king making fun of the length of the oiler agreement negotiations and how public it was, only to come out with the joke that was Calgary next. Then taking even longer for the flames agreement to finally coming about and having it just as public with the same relocation threats and everything else.

It was enjoyable to follow, was all I was saying.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by bdubbs

I hope they keep it in line with the vision they have going for the East Village area. Our library is beautiful to look at.

It's really a whole vision of the Rivers District. It's a vision for that whole area not just the new arena and it's a great plan.

If CMLC is removed as Project Management? While the area may develop in the spirit of the vision, knowing CSEC, the arena won't be integrated into the area, but rather a walled off space that actually takes AWAY from what CMLC envisions. The writing on the wall seems pretty clear that instead of being a part of a district, CSEC wants to be its own district and shut out the community that gets built around it.

[powderjunkie]

It's sad that the dumpster fire to our north is the only way to rationalize the Flames on-ce and off-ice futility.

Edmonton took a raw deal, but at least it was a legitimate catalyst for revitalizing the worst part of town. Calgary already achieved that (with a crafty re-draw of CRL for the Bow building).

Our new arena turns a parking lot 300m north into an arena, and the old arena into a parking lot. Which is fine, but doesn't actually do much for the city.


Sim-city fantasy, but I wish it could've gone another 300 meters further north to the Remington lands between 11 Ave and the CP tracks (which the city is paving for the Stampede as part of the deal). Build the arena south of the tracks, and the practice rink + retail etc. on the north side, with indoor and outdoor concourses bridging across the CP tracks.

Boom. Stephen Ave/Olympic Plaza flows to the library/Studio Bell which flows to the arena --> Stampede Park --> 17 Ave and you've got a horseshoe of vibrancy (with a few short gaps that would fill pretty quickly).

With the current plans, the blight of the CP tracks will remain a significant barrier within our CBD. Obviously it's not an arena's job to fix that sort of thing, but that's the kind of transformational value-add that would get me more on board for public contributions.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

It's really a whole vision of the Rivers District. It's a vision for that whole area not just the new arena and it's a great plan.

If CMLC is removed as Project Management? While the area may develop in the spirit of the vision, knowing CSEC, the arena won't be integrated into the area, but rather a walled off space that actually takes AWAY from what CMLC envisions. The writing on the wall seems pretty clear that instead of being a part of a district, CSEC wants to be its own district and shut out the community that gets built around it.

This is all bunk. you have no idea how CSEC operates with their partners, the City of Calgary. If you think it is true show proof, or go work for CNN