People who talk about the arena being about subsidizing millionaires and/or billionaires can shampoo my crotch. We will need a new arena ANYWAY, as the current one is A JOKE. We as taxpayers might as well partner with CSEC, so half is paid for privately. Whether the Flames are here or not, we NEED a new building-the current one IS NOT FINE!!!!!
If not for the pro-Hockey team, what do we NEED a new arena of that size for?
Not that I totally disagree with your premise, but acting as is this is some basic life necessity is a bit far. Think of how many sheets of community ice we could add for the cost?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
If not for the pro-Hockey team, what do we NEED a new arena of that size for?
Not that I totally disagree with your premise, but acting as is this is some basic life necessity is a bit far. Think of how many sheets of community ice we could add for the cost?
If not for the pro-Hockey team, what do we NEED a new arena of that size for?
Not that I totally disagree with your premise, but acting as is this is some basic life necessity is a bit far. Think of how many sheets of community ice we could add for the cost?
Well if that's the case, why do we need a new Library? Why do we need a new Convention Center? Every city needs an event center that they can be proud of, for buisiness purposes, and for community purposes. I would argue the merits of keeping an NHL team in the City, but I know that would be pointless. Besides, if the Arena is partially funded privately, that would mean the taxpayers save.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sandman For This Useful Post:
If we need a new building for concerts we would do better to design and build a new building for concerts, likely at a lower cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman
Well if that's the case, why do we need a new Library? Why do we need a new Convention Center? Every city needs an event center that they can be proud of, for buisiness purposes, and for community purposes. I would argue the merits of keeping an NHL team in the City, but I know that would be pointless. Besides, if the Arena is partially funded privately, that would mean the taxpayers save.
Library can be accessed by everyone for free and convention centres bring travel and business.
I agree that we don’t NEED an “event center.” I’m not opposed to Calgary having one and at this point I wish they’d get it over with, but there are buildings that could better serve any vague “business” or “community” purpose, and whether we want to admit it or not, the Saddledome is actually fine for the purpose it’s required for. The only thing it’s not fine for is maximizing private profit, which is also fine, but we should just be honest about it.
A new arena is like a new car. Yeah, it’s got more bells and whistles, but in the end you’re just paying more to drive to the same places. The Saddledome still gets us there all the same, so why not be honest about that?
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
...
A new arena is like a new car. Yeah, it’s got more bells and whistles, but in the end you’re just paying more to drive to the same places. The Saddledome still gets us there all the same, so why not be honest about that?
Yes, you can use an old car to drive places even as driving gets less and less pleasant and repairs get more expensive. Your friends start calling you a cheapskate. Girls and guys stop looking your way with any amorous interest in mind. But it's only you that suffer these consequences (or not suffer but gloat in joys of being frugal). In case of an NHL team, you do need players wanting to play at your arena, living in your city, and you do need people wanting to visit the venue. So, if the premise is "yes, we want to keep an NHL team in Calgary and we do want big names coming here for concerts", then we do want to build a new arena.
And for the record, I do like the Saddledome building and do think it has quite a few good years left in it. But just like a good old car, it might just be the time to start thinking of a new one (as it will take 2-3 years to get it built).
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
If we need a new building for concerts we would do better to design and build a new building for concerts, likely at a lower cost.
Library can be accessed by everyone for free and convention centres bring travel and business.
I agree that we don’t NEED an “event center.” I’m not opposed to Calgary having one and at this point I wish they’d get it over with, but there are buildings that could better serve any vague “business” or “community” purpose, and whether we want to admit it or not, the Saddledome is actually fine for the purpose it’s required for. The only thing it’s not fine for is maximizing private profit, which is also fine, but we should just be honest about it.
A new arena is like a new car. Yeah, it’s got more bells and whistles, but in the end you’re just paying more to drive to the same places. The Saddledome still gets us there all the same, so why not be honest about that?
Arenas bring travel and buisiness too, as well as jobs. The Saddledome is not fine, it's falling apart in places, and it's an embarrassment. We miss out on plenty of events because of it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sandman For This Useful Post:
I know all the benefits of a new arena and the problems with the Saddledome, I just think the argument for it would be more convincing if it wasn’t framed as a “need.” The Flames aren’t a need either, they’re a nice-to-have, and I love having them, but there is no angle where an NHL hockey team is a need, and therefore there is no angle where an arena that can hold an NHL hockey team is one.
Hell, even Arizona is getting by without one and they have an NHL team.
The Saddledome is fine, truly. It won’t last forever. But we should be very clear on the fact that whether you want to bring in business, host concerts, create a place to gather the community, or create jobs, an NHL hockey-ready arena is not the best choice, it may not even be top 10 for any of those things. It’s for hosting an NHL team and keeping the Flames in Calgary, so let’s not bull#### about other made up reasons why we want it.
Let’s give the homeless access to the Saddledome when we’re done with it for hockey and they can use it for meth sport until the roof collapses. Would ease the transit stations.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to topfiverecords For This Useful Post:
If we need a new building for concerts we would do better to design and build a new building for concerts, likely at a lower cost.
Library can be accessed by everyone for free and convention centres bring travel and business.
I agree that we don’t NEED an “event center.” I’m not opposed to Calgary having one and at this point I wish they’d get it over with, but there are buildings that could better serve any vague “business” or “community” purpose, and whether we want to admit it or not, the Saddledome is actually fine for the purpose it’s required for. The only thing it’s not fine for is maximizing private profit, which is also fine, but we should just be honest about it.
A new arena is like a new car. Yeah, it’s got more bells and whistles, but in the end you’re just paying more to drive to the same places. The Saddledome still gets us there all the same, so why not be honest about that?
I have seen the studies that have suggested that professional sports venues don't significantly benefit city taxpayers. But are there studies that show that convention centres bring in any more revenue for municipalities or local businesses than sports venues? It seems to me that both make similar claims, with potentially biased studies to back them up.
And since we're being honest, the Saddledome's days of getting us there are coming to an end. The cost of maintaining the deteriorating roof will just keep increasing until its structural integrity is degraded to the point that the building is condemned. Based on recent engineering reports, it is possible that four of the cables supporting the roof structure have already ruptured, and exposed parts of the cables are showing signs of rust. Other portions of the cables are not visible but are potentially compromised by rust because the membrane protecting them is ruptured and they are exposed to moisture present on the roof. The city, which owns the Saddledome, has installed nets to mitigate the risk to the public and potential damage from loose bits of concrete that have been falling from the outer ring of the roof, but has failed to arrange for an assessment of the cabling supporting the roof (in spite of the recommendation in the engineering report that this was an essential part of risk mitigation), and my suspicion is that this is because the city is worried that such a report might support CSEC's contention that a replacement is urgently needed and thus weaken the city's bargaining position.
So I guess the question is, do you really need that new car, or are you OK continuing with the old clunker with the rusted out chassis? It will keep getting you there until one day it doesn't, but that day could be a very bad day indeed.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Macindoc For This Useful Post:
The city, which owns the Saddledome, has ….failed to arrange for an assessment of the cabling supporting the roof (in spite of the recommendation in the engineering report that this was an essential part of risk mitigation), and my suspicion is that this is because the city is worried that such a report might support CSEC's contention that a replacement is urgently needed and thus weaken the city's bargaining position.
What!? I was not aware. This is insane. Who does the City think they are? Boeing?
I have seen the studies that have suggested that professional sports venues don't significantly benefit city taxpayers. But are there studies that show that convention centres bring in any more revenue for municipalities or local businesses than sports venues? It seems to me that both make similar claims, with potentially biased studies to back them up.
And since we're being honest, the Saddledome's days of getting us there are coming to an end. The cost of maintaining the deteriorating roof will just keep increasing until its structural integrity is degraded to the point that the building is condemned. Based on recent engineering reports, it is possible that four of the cables supporting the roof structure have already ruptured, and exposed parts of the cables are showing signs of rust. Other portions of the cables are not visible but are potentially compromised by rust because the membrane protecting them is ruptured and they are exposed to moisture present on the roof. The city, which owns the Saddledome, has installed nets to mitigate the risk to the public and potential damage from loose bits of concrete that have been falling from the outer ring of the roof, but has failed to arrange for an assessment of the cabling supporting the roof (in spite of the recommendation in the engineering report that this was an essential part of risk mitigation), and my suspicion is that this is because the city is worried that such a report might support CSEC's contention that a replacement is urgently needed and thus weaken the city's bargaining position.
So I guess the question is, do you really need that new car, or are you OK continuing with the old clunker with the rusted out chassis? It will keep getting you there until one day it doesn't, but that day could be a very bad day indeed.
But that’s just an argument for repairing or condemning the Saddledome, not for building a new arena. If it’s an impending structure disaster that could kill hundreds if not thousands, by all means, condemn it. Why wait another half decade or more for a new arena? Surely people’s lives are more important.
I don’t really think we need a new convention center either, but that’s basically built already, so what are we going to do? Tear down the new addition?
I’m with you on everything you’re saying, just don’t think the pro-arena side of the argument wins any favour by starting with the assumption that everyone agrees on the arena being a “need” in the first place, when it’s clearly just a want (and a totally fair want to have).
An escalator can never break: it can only become stairs. You should never see an Escalator Temporarily Out Of Order sign, just Escalator Temporarily Stairs. Sorry for the convenience.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bzoo02 For This Useful Post:
An escalator can never break: it can only become stairs. You should never see an Escalator Temporarily Out Of Order sign, just Escalator Temporarily Stairs. Sorry for the convenience.
You forgot to credit and cite your Mitch Hedberg quote.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Madman For This Useful Post:
