[News] CSEC and City of Calgary agree to restart formal discussions on new arena

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

The only one of those done is Platform. It's a parkade (also convertible to residential in the future). What don't you like about it?

What's wrong with the master plan?

The process was sloppy - from what I remember City administration had the design team go back with significant revisions as it was not as polished as it should have been. The plan itself is overly reliant on towers to achieve the necessary density as opposed to mid-rise massing which tends to create better neighbourhoods, and the public spaces are not very well thought out. It's lacking in comparison to the earlier East Village master plan which was really well executed and created a great framework for the redevelopment of that area.

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

"Designed by Kasian and 5468796 Architecture, the building design allows for conversion of the space into commercial and/or residential uses through considerations that make it unique among parking structures"

It is convertible.

Take a look at the building the next time you are in the area. The slabs are sloped at 4%. It might be technically feasible to convert the structure somehow, but it's never going to happen.

Anyway that's probably enough of this tangent. Bottom line is that CMLC is not doing as good a job as they were in the past.

[getbak]

The Herald talks to Neil deMause, the author of Field of Schemes, about the city's decision to hire CAA ICON as a “deal structure adviser.”

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...otiating-table

“They certainly have the chops if Calgary wants them to go in and play hardball and say, ‘Okay, find those reasons why we shouldn’t have to put up a whole lot of money for an arena, and why we should kick this back over to the Flames’ owners,’” he said.

He said it entirely depends on the mandate they’re handed.

“Are they tasked with finding a way to keep the costs to a reasonable level, or are they tasked with trying to find a way to get a deal done? Because those are two very different goals,” said deMause.

This is helpful because I found it hard to get a handle on what to expect from CAA ICON since they've help so many different roles on so many different arena and stadium projects.

As it mentions, CAA ICON was hired by the Oilers in negotiations with the City of Edmonton for Rogers Place... and we know how good that deal was for the city.

It's interesting to see them working on the city's side this time around.



Looking at their portfolio, it looks like their work with the City of Sacramento in negotiations with the Kings is the closest comparison to the role they'll have here: https://www.caaicon.com/portfolio/city-sacramento

It looks like that deal ended up being very similar to the original deal between the city and CSEC, where costs were split about 50/50, but the city also had a fixed maximum amount, with the Kings taking on the extra costs. In the end, the city put up about 47% of the final cost.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by getbak

The Herald talks to Neil deMause, the author of Field of Schemes, about the city's decision to hire CAA ICON as a “deal structure adviser.”

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...otiating-table



This is helpful because I found it hard to get a handle on what to expect from CAA ICON since they've help so many different roles on so many different arena and stadium projects.

As it mentions, CAA ICON was hired by the Oilers in negotiations with the City of Edmonton for Rogers Place... and we know how good that deal was for the city.

It's interesting to see them working on the city's side this time around.



Looking at their portfolio, it looks like their work with the City of Sacramento in negotiations with the Kings is the closest comparison to the role they'll have here: https://www.caaicon.com/portfolio/city-sacramento

It looks like that deal ended up being very similar to the original deal between the city and CSEC, where costs were split about 50/50, but the city also had a fixed maximum amount, with the Kings taking on the extra costs. In the end, the city put up about 47% of the final cost.

The Sacramento deal would be fantastic.

[Manhattanboy]

Interesting tidbit from an insider with the Flames is that ownership has not completely abandoned the idea of a new building downtown (West Village).

You would think the City would prefer the current location to proceed but they also have to come up with a plan for the old Greyhound Station and remediation of the contamination of the surrounding area.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Interesting tidbit from an insider with the Flames is that ownership has not completely abandoned the idea of a new building downtown (West Village).

You would think the City would prefer the current location to proceed but they also have to come up with a plan for the old Greyhound Station and remediation of the contamination of the surrounding area.

Really poor idea, imo. Especially with the exodus of people working downtown in the past half decade.

You have to revitalize one area at a time with careful planning, so you don't saturate. To have all this work put into the east side and then suddenly have the Flames plop an arena on the west side and start trying to attract and build development around it would be the wrong move for the downtown area.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Interesting tidbit from an insider with the Flames is that ownership has not completely abandoned the idea of a new building downtown (West Village)..

Of course they haven't lol

[Major Major]

I wonder what their fascination is about that part of the city.... Easier to make a real estate play? Unending desire to screw the stampede? Murray Edwards hates creosote and wants it gone for good?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Really poor idea, imo. Especially with the exodus of people working downtown in the past half decade.

You have to revitalize one area at a time with careful planning, so you don't saturate. To have all this work put into the east side and then suddenly have the Flames plop an arena on the west side and start trying to attract and build development around it would be the wrong move for the downtown area.

East village will always be a dump as long as the drop in is near by. There is some great development there but as long as junkies are given access to live in the most prime real estate in the city, the east side will always be sketchy.

[getbak]

That sounds like someone trying to make it sound like they have other options when everyone knows they don't.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by getbak

That sounds like someone trying to make it sound like they have other options when everyone knows they don't.

Probably. You have to think that ship has sailed.

One reason cited was poor access and traffic congestion in East Village.

I know it was always pure fantasy but I loved the boldness and vision of Calgary Next. Although I’m not a fan of CFL rules, a downtown, covered football stadium would get me to every Stamps game. I haven’t been to McMahon in years.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Interesting tidbit from an insider with the Flames is that ownership has not completely abandoned the idea of a new building downtown (West Village).

You would think the City would prefer the current location to proceed but they also have to come up with a plan for the old Greyhound Station and remediation of the contamination of the surrounding area.

[browna]

Originally Posted by getbak

That sounds like someone trying to make it sound like they have other options when everyone knows they don't.

The Flames owners despise the Stampede Board and have for decades/years. If they could get away from there they would.

An arena where the Greyhound station is, close to 2 LRT lines? No fieldhouse this time around? Not totally out of the question.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by getbak

That sounds like someone trying to make it sound like they have other options when everyone knows they don't.

Maybe Balzac is still in play

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Major Major

I wonder what their fascination is about that part of the city.... Easier to make a real estate play? Unending desire to screw the stampede? Murray Edwards hates creosote and wants it gone for good?

Land holders on that side of downtown + connections to Flames ownership. Similar reasons to why CSEC wanted the bus barn land in the previous deal. Property development profits.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by browna

The Flames owners despise the Stampede Board and have for decades/years. If they could get away from there they would.

An arena where the Greyhound station is, close to 2 LRT lines? No fieldhouse this time around? Not totally out of the question.

Dude...okay, I worked at Greyhound for a few years and I've heard the stories from the lifers.

We're talking about negotiations breaking down between CSEC and the City on the last deal over sidewalks and solar panels or whatever?

That land that Greyhound was on? You might as well build an arena on the Korean DMZ. You'd probably find fewer landmines.

Lord only knows what they've dumped and/or buried over there. Greyhound DGAF.

There are reasons they pulled-pin and called 'er a day and Land Liability is probably up there.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

East village will always be a dump as long as the drop in is near by. There is some great development there but as long as junkies are given access to live in the most prime real estate in the city, the east side will always be sketchy.

As a resident of EV for 6 years - it's not nearly as bad as you imagine. They keep to themselves, we do the same. No different than the Beltline. That's downtown living. I've never been harassed down here.

[Number 39]

Originally Posted by browna

The Flames owners despise the Stampede Board and have for decades/years. If they could get away from there they would.

An arena where the Greyhound station is, close to 2 LRT lines? No fieldhouse this time around? Not totally out of the question.

I don’t blame them. I never had positive business dealings with the Stampede Board either. I wouldn’t want them in the middle of my deal either and that’s before I even think about parking revenue etc.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Number 39

I don’t blame them. I never had positive business dealings with the Stampede Board either. I wouldn’t want them in the middle of my deal either and that’s before I even think about parking revenue etc.

Are they the IOC of Calgary?

[Number 39]

I hesitated in my response and thought about it and I guess I would say, “kind of” in terms of anything that happens on the land they “control”. Been many years since I moved from Calgary but ask yourself why the Flames would want an uninvited partner in the middle of their future revenue streams. Particularly and, this is just my opinion, one with an inflated sense of self worth.

[timun]

It sounds like CSEC should own their own arena then, eh?