Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[N-E-B]

So 3, maybe 4 seasons left of the Saddledome? We need a new arena desperately but it will be a sad day when that building is no longer there. It’s become an iconic part of our skyline.

[getbak]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1419830479935578112


So, CSEC will be the development manager in partnership with an established sports development manager instead of CMLC. In exchange, the City's costs are fixed and CSEC will be on the hook for any excess.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by getbak

https://twitter.com/user/status/1419830479935578112


So, CSEC will be the development manager in partnership with an established sports development manager instead of CMLC. In exchange, the City's costs are fixed and CSEC will be on the hook for any excess.

So likely a pared down building then?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So likely a pared down building then?

I don't know, I'd think there is less likelihood of a scaled down version, now that the city's costs are fixed

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

When the city took over ownership of the west end they agreed to clean up the creosote problem. I have lived in Calgary since 1975 and nothing has been done, the land is valueless unless the city does it's job and has exactly zero tax revenue posibility. CSEC was basically forcing the issue and the city used every excuse to make sure it didn't happen so that they would never have to address the creosote problem.

Yes manage the clean up, but there has also always been the belief/hope that the current owners of the original company would be on the hook and/or other branches of gov't to help. Obviously that is taking forever to resolve.

Of course the remediated land will be much more valuable. Numbers are out of my butt since it's been so long since this came up, but the scenarios are fairly simple:

A. CSEC could have helped the city with ~20% of the cost but we'd lose ~50% of land available for revenue generation.
or
B. The city can let it play out, hope costs are defrayed one way or the other, and maintain 100% of future revenue.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't know, I'd think there is less likelihood of a scaled down version, now that the city's costs are fixed

Agreed.

I think with things announced today, this arena skips past some red tape and politics involved potentially in the future with the City. The CMLC, as although they are technically arms length from the City, if they don’t like something proposed or there is some people with agenda not liking the CESC, they’re running to council or Nenshi to complain and hang that threat over the Flames. This eliminates that.

The Oilers rink got neutered from the original design and aesthetic, in part due to overruns and inability to decide who pays for it when construction was well along.

Hopefully the Flames don’t have that occur but at least it then falls on them 100% from any original designs if things get going any snags occur and they have to make quick decisions...and we don’t get some compromised design because it had to be run through the various filters of civic government like up north.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Yes manage the clean up, but there has also always been the belief/hope that the current owners of the original company would be on the hook and/or other branches of gov't to help. Obviously that is taking forever to resolve.

Of course the remediated land will be much more valuable. Numbers are out of my butt since it's been so long since this came up, but the scenarios are fairly simple:

A. CSEC could have helped the city with ~20% of the cost but we'd lose ~50% of land available for revenue generation.
or
B. The city can let it play out, hope costs are defrayed one way or the other, and maintain 100% of future revenue.

No, do the cleanup. Started out at $30 M cost estimate and with dithering by the city it is over $ 300 M. This is not the developers problems it is all the City of Calgary. No developer will ever agree to work on that land until it is cleaned up, so there is no future revenue.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

No, do the cleanup. Started out at $30 M cost estimate and with dithering by the city it is over $ 300 M. This is not the developers problems it is all the City of Calgary. No developer will ever agree to work on that land until it is cleaned up, so there is no future revenue.

I never claimed the developers would. Domtar and/or feds. Aka the polluter or the regulator who failed to regulate the polluter.

I wouldn't be opposed to doing the cleanup anytime, but development there would simply cannibalize completion of EV.

[JBR]

Sounds like there will be discussion at council on Tuesday. Could this go to yet another vote.. or is it a done deal?

[Burninator]

"City administration told council that the design plan will be finalized for the development permit submission this week. Construction is set to start in December this year, with expected completion by August 2024."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...osts-1.6117877

Should see some renderings this week.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by jbr

sounds like there will be discussion at council on tuesday. Could this go to yet another vote.. Or is it a done deal?

I think it's this.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1419745415705079808

I can't be positive (because, council), but it's a done deal they are just working on some changes to the deal. I don't think there will be a vote to cancel the arena or anything like that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

No, do the cleanup. Started out at $30 M cost estimate and with dithering by the city it is over $ 300 M. This is not the developers problems it is all the City of Calgary. No developer will ever agree to work on that land until it is cleaned up, so there is no future revenue.

Yes, the delay is inexcusable, notwithstanding who gets the final bill. It’s like waiting to treat your lung cancer because you are suing a tobacco company and you don’t know who’s responsible yet.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes, the delay is inexcusable, notwithstanding who gets the final bill. It’s like waiting to treat your lung cancer because you are suing a tobacco company and you don’t know who’s responsible yet.

Agree totally. The issue to me is that this one thing shows the city not being able to fully understand or comprehend what they sign most of the time (and this has been going on since Al Duer was mayor). Was Calgary Next a good project, no it was not. Is the new arena a good deal, probably because CSEC has to put up over 50% of the money. Were CSEC ever going to have CMLC (city owned management company) run the project, no they weren't because why would CSEC look at the city and have faith they will ever perform the deal to the agreed upon contract.

[getbak]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1420139452836483086

Hopefully, this will all be settled tomorrow afternoon.

[Scary Eloranta]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I didn't realize inverted bowl was still on the table. Shame that it didn't work out, I think it would have been really cool.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm bummed about the inverted bowl being scrapped. Would have been unique with upper deck being on top of the action. I hope they don't water it down too much now and we end up with a generic, bland design. I don't even want edmonton's arena. From what I've heard, the upper deck isn't much better than the Saddledome. Cramped, no washrooms, no concessions. Never actually been in it though so going on hearsay.

[Robbob]

Yeah, I thought the benefit of the inverted was that it was cheaper in terms for cost of steel and had a smaller footprint.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

I was thinking the same thing. I'm bummed about the inverted bowl being scrapped. Would have been unique with upper deck being on top of the action. I hope they don't water it down too much now and we end up with a generic, bland design. I don't even want edmonton's arena. From what I've heard, the upper deck isn't much better than the Saddledome. Cramped, no washrooms, no concessions. Never actually been in it though so going on hearsay.

IMO the upper deck of Rogers is far worse than the saddledome. I know people who refuse to sit on the second deck because it is too steep and it triggers their fear of heights. by experience, you can't lean forward at all in the seat without pissing off the people behind you and blocking their view of the ice.
It really feels like 2 tier fandom.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

IMO the upper deck of Rogers is far worse than the saddledome. I know people who refuse to sit on the second deck because it is too steep and it triggers their fear of heights. by experience, you can't lean forward at all in the seat without pissing off the people behind you and blocking their view of the ice.

It really feels like 2 tier fandom.

The inverted bowl concept would have been even steeper, I believe. I'm glad they didn't go with that design - a bit too risky to be the first to implement it.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by D as in David

The inverted bowl concept would have been even steeper, I believe. I'm glad they didn't go with that design - a bit too risky to be the first to implement it.

Yeah I think even the renderings they had plexiglass between rows up high to prevent from falling over each other.

Good in theory, until someone falls out of the rafters into the player's bench.

[MegaErtz]

Something doesn't add up here. Taxpayers were on the hook for cost overruns previously, and now in exchange for paying $12.5m and agreeing to remove the CMLC as project managers, the Flames are willing to take on the cost overruns? Several councillors stated at the time of their "yes" vote that a major reason was that the CMLC would be in charge, and given their record of delivering projects on time and on budget, combined with the oversight it would give council, I could understand it, even though I still feel as though it was a bad deal for taxpayers.

Of the fifteen voting members of council, only Chu, Carra, Colley-Urquhart, Demong, and possibly Magliocca will be up for re-election. It is likely that one of Gondek, Davison, or Farkas will be elected mayor, meaning that we're guaranteed at least nine new council members, and more than likely ten given Magliocca's expense "issues."

It will certainly be interesting to see who the retiring members of Coucil end up working for in private life.