The initial proposal had significant issues, but the most recent presentation shows indeed that things are evolving for the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Do you think they are really jaded about being 'dictated to', or more interested in planning the best city they can and being careful stewards of public money?
I know it's fun to cast aspersions on public servants and gov't officials, but it's largely overblown IMO. They are no more/less incompetent or well-intentioned than any of the rest of us.
If they were indeed interested in being careful stewards of public money, they wouldn't have released this rubbish report which, given it's numerous errors in methodology, is clearly designed to sway the opinion of those who take things at face value rather than provide an objective analysis. If concern over spending public dollars was paramount, the City would take an in depth look at the economies of scale resulting from a combined facility rather than proposing a separate fieldhouse and an expensive renovation of McMahon stadium that will end up costing more than the public contribution to a CalgaryNext in the long run.
One of the major complaints coming from the City was that the proposal was "too corporate." This article suggests there's bad blood towards ownership over this. I can tell you for a fact that this administration has a natural aversion to private sector encroachment on its territory. The West Village ARP was their baby and having a private sector organization suggest an alternative is not palatable to many of these people. I'm not saying they are incompetent, but like the rest of us, they are looking out for their own interests first.
In reality, the City should be doing everything they can to attract private investment in brownfield sites, however that's another discussion. While I agree that the CMLC has done fantastic work in the East Village, I do not think that its continued expansion is a good thing for the development industry in Calgary.
The Following User Says Thank You to Zarley For This Useful Post:
Why do they like this location, it's likely pretty simple. It's Down Town (in a broad sense of Down Town location), can likely accomodate the size of the project, and does not tie them to the Stampede. All pluses from a Flames stand point.
Ahhh but you leave out the crucial element and why they want this location more than any other reason: The real estate money they can make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley
The initial proposal had significant issues, but the most recent presentation shows indeed that things are evolving for the better.
But you know what they say about first impressions. And that horse is well out of the barn now.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Remember the YouTube videos from Brett Wilson and others (maybe George Brookman...can't remember) at the launch? The money trail may not always be obvious, but I have no doubt they will be invested in projects...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
Ahhh but you leave out the crucial element and why they want this location more than any other reason: The real estate money they can make.
I think real estate potential at the WV certainly plays a part in the proposal, but only from the perspective of providing a funding mechanism to achieve the desired project. I can't see Flames ownership moving into real estate, the more likely scenarios is either CMLC or a private master developer brought on to facilitate the sale of various sites surrounding the project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
But you know what they say about first impressions. And that horse is well out of the barn now.
Agreed - what was presented initially was not well done at all.
Boy, Zarley, the WV having "negative value" is a real whopper.
I couldn't get by that statement. If you are using that as the foundation for an argument I don't know how you could possibly come to an accurate conclusion on the viability if the project.
If the land was so worthless why do the flames want it? More altruism from Calgary's London's famous citizen Murray Edwards.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
No it doesn't. Let's try and keep the hyperbole to a minimum.
To many disagree with what I said to respond to everyone!
However, I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but I do read what Bunk says, and very few of you contradict his points about leeching development from other areas in the core.
In my view, that means CalgaryNEXT is hurting our downtown development. If you disagree, awesome, I won't respond again because I only know what I read.... well here!
The other part of my point was they point of my post - Edmonton's needs for a downtown arena are completely different from Calgary's, and as such, it comes across as extreme over simplification when people compare the two cities's arena plans.
Has anyone ever heard anything about what Remington actually wants to do with their land north of Stampede? More condos?
The green line is proposed to go through there - perhaps a nice underground station right at the arena. The parcel between 9 Ave and the CP tracks is short and wide - good for not much more than parking, which would be good as roughly 1/3 of the access/egress would occur on 9th ave - north of the tracks and not bottlenecked as it is now.
Also tunnels and/or overpasses to the arena/trainstation would help link EV (NMC, new library) and Stampede side of things.
It probably wouldn't even be necessary to go south of 11 ave unless they want to do the stadium too, but if they did, there are 8 holdout residences at 11 ave and 5 st SW, an auto service shop and crappy old office building. It's a huge parcel that isn't really ideal for anything...except another large gathering space.
WV is a very attractive, totally blank slate that could be anything. It won't need any help to be great. Stampede to East Village area would actually benefit. I'm all for the city help making it happen there. If Flames want WV, they can pay market value on everything, including property tax as far as I'm concerned.
Wait, what? One of the biggest negatives from the vocal anti-CalgaryNEXT group has been the cost of improving infrastructure in around the WV site. Now we're talking about vast infrastructure improvements for a single facility, that being a new arena in EV? So it is okay to build new over-passes, train lines, and even a tunnel to get to this new single use facility, but not make much needed improvements to the infrastructure the city has already identified as being a problem? Okay, that makes a lot of sense.
Oh, and we're going to build a new field house on land where the infrastructure is terrible around that area too. The road access and parking in that area is a gong show and you're going to add a substantial facility that will see hundreds to thousands of visitors each day? That doesn't make sense either.
Then again, it certainly beats renovating McMahon Stadium, and trying to bring it up to modern standards. The same road and parking issues that will plague the new field house will also plague McMahon Stadium. The final point of what a failure this concept is, is the local community will still not be accepting of large event concerts. So another goal of this project gets missed.
Very strange that the people that are preaching fiscal conservatism for CalgaryNEXT have some pretty grandiose ideas about spending tax payer dollars to provide upgrades to their preferred location, even thought it addresses very few of the objectives of the larger scale project.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
The reason the Flames want the WV that makes the most sense is because they think it is the one which lands them the greatest number of handouts.
1) They get a free hole dug for them with the remediation work. Holes are expensive.
2) It has room for a dual facility so they get the field house money.
3) CRL because "community revitalization".
The Following User Says Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
The reason the Flames want the WV that makes the most sense is because they think it is the one which lands them the greatest number of handouts.
1) They get a free hole dug for them with the remediation work. Holes are expensive.
2) It has room for a dual facility so they get the field house money.
3) CRL because "community revitalization".
In other, less politically charged conversations, one might call those synergies.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Boy, Zarley, the WV having "negative value" is a real whopper.
I couldn't get by that statement. If you are using that as the foundation for an argument I don't know how you could possibly come to an accurate conclusion on the viability if the project.
If the land was so worthless why do the flames want it? More altruism from Calgary's London's famous citizen Murray Edwards.
They don't want it dirty though. They want it clean. As of right now it potentially has negative value. Edwards isn't taking as is where is. He's asking for free remediation.
They don't want it dirty though. They want it clean. As of right now it potentially has negative value. Edwards isn't taking as is where is. He's asking for free remediation.
Anyone who goes in there wants it clean. That's why it has been sitting there for 50 years. This is no different that trying to sell any property that has a known deficiency. You try and sell your house with a bad roof you are either going to have to repair the roof prior to the sale being complete, or reduce the price to compensate the new owner for the deficiency. In this particular case there is a legal requirement that the site be remediated prior to any type of construction, so I don't know how you can say that the new owner is asking for a free remediation. The CalgaryNEXT project, just like every that has come before it, has laid the burden on the City to pursue the cleanup of the site, since they are the current owner and have the appropriate resources to go after the previous owners to recover costs.
Anyone who goes in there wants it clean. That's why it has been sitting there for 50 years. This is no different that trying to sell any property that has a known deficiency. You try and sell your house with a bad roof you are either going to have to repair the roof prior to the sale being complete, or reduce the price to compensate the new owner for the deficiency. In this particular case there is a legal requirement that the site be remediated prior to any type of construction, so I don't know how you can say that the new owner is asking for a free remediation. The CalgaryNEXT project, just like every that has come before it, has laid the burden on the City to pursue the cleanup of the site, since they are the current owner and have the appropriate resources to go after the previous owners to recover costs.
But then they want the land for free at which point it could be sold to a private developer.
That was Zarley's point, if you "compensate the owner for the deficiency" you'll be paying them to take it off your hands, i.e. it has negative value right now.
In other, less politically charged conversations, one might call those synergies.
A principal of synergies is shared savings. So while, yes, the first two (free hole, fieldhouse $200M) are an optimization of resources, I stop short of calling them a synergy because the Flames are asking for all of the benefit. The third (CRL) though is just a straight up handout.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
Boy, Zarley, the WV having "negative value" is a real whopper.
I couldn't get by that statement. If you are using that as the foundation for an argument I don't know how you could possibly come to an accurate conclusion on the viability if the project.
If the land was so worthless why do the flames want it? More altruism from Calgary's London's famous citizen Murray Edwards.
Well, you are completely wrong. If the City were to put its WV holdings on the market as-is, no investor would buy these lands. Nobody is going to assume a remediation liability of this magnitude, period.
In order to move the lands, the City would have to agree to foot the cost of remediation. Essentially, they would have to pay someone to take the property at its market value.
Even if the contamination was dealt with, the current zoning and configuration of the area would limit interest. Access from Bow Trail is restricted and the allowable uses are limited to automotive on a 12 acre portion of the site.
Here's another way to look at it:
-Market value of WV holdings without environmental liability: $60-75 million (based on market rates for large inner city C-COR and urban reserve land transactions)
-WV remediation cost: $85-140 million (city estimate)
Is that not the definition of negative value?
Project still looks like a pile of trash. Not a fan of the field house/stadium combo. No matter how they spin it, I still can't see how both can be a true success and not take away from the other in some shape or form. If I have to sit inside a permanently covered stadium with a "Green Roof" that sheds no light I'll cancel my Stampeder season tickets. No way I want to sit inside a gymnasium in July. Still holding out hope for a 100% privately funded stadium somewhere on the Stampede grounds, a field house at Foothills Athletic park, and a new stadium a la Winnipeg/Saskatchewan somewhere. Why couldn't just the stadium be located in the West Village? Would be nice to have a new Arena and Stadium bookend downtown on either end.
__________________
Stanley Cup - 1989
Clarence Campbell Trophy - 1986, 1989, 2004
Presidents Trophy - 1988, 1989
William Jennings Trophy - 2006
