Now I will preface this that I understand that Dallas/Fort Worth has like 5 times the amount of people relative to Calgary and that the absolute vast amount of resources that have been used on stadiums there probably is a sign of a toxic culture in the opposite direction . . . However I find the fact that a city with a metro population now over 1.5 million people in North America is still trotting out a crumbling arena built in the early 80s (it's going to take 50-$100 million to repair the Saddledome's roof in 5-10 years) and a basic venue made from concrete slabs that cost $10 million in 2020 dollars in 1960 as it's professional sports stadiums as absolutely embarrassing and so much so that it probably impacts some peoples decisions with tourist dollars and even deciding to move here in the first place.
Of all the things happening in this city/province/country/world, I'm not sure the mildly shabby state of our pro sports venue cracks my top million list.
Of all the money I've ever spent on travel, I can say with certainty that the quality of a prospective destination's arena/stadium infrastructure has never entered my mind...but maybe that's just me. Even the few times I've travelled specifically for an event, it hasn't crossed my mind.
If I ever found myself deciding between several cities to go see an event, there are a million factors I'd consider before 'quality of venue'. Like...I'm not going to choose somewhere that requires a more expensive flight with a layover and doesn't have convenient hotels just because they happen to have the newest arena of the bunch and is rumoured to have the best acoustics...
Personally, I'm slightly proud that we haven't rushed to build ourselves a new monument to corporate welfare...if I found myself needing to relocate I'd actually find Seattle's refusal to be extorted an appealing indicator that the city has reasonable priorities, but of course that would be waaaaay down the list of considerations, too.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Of all the money I've ever spent on travel, I can say with certainty that the quality of a prospective destination's arena/stadium infrastructure has never entered my mind...but maybe that's just me. Even the few times I've travelled specifically for an event, it hasn't crossed my mind.
You'd better believe it crosses the minds of the people who put on those events. If the venue doesn't meet their requirements, they don't use it in the first place.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
Funny I was driving through downtown Vancouver this evening right by Rogers Arena and BC Place. So many cool places to live, work and play. Tons of people out on the street. I thought to myself, what a vibrant city.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, because it's a mixed bag. Yes, Robson is vibrant. It is enhanced by BC Place, but also exists as its own entity. But Expo Blvd is a tunnel - totally dead. Pacific Blvd, despite being waterfront adjacent, also pretty dead. The land cut off from the rest of the downtown by the arenas is some of the most underutilized that exists on the peninsula.
This is why no one visits Rome...their stadium is so ####ing old and shabby...
One of the first things the Romans used to do after conquering a new area was build arenas and coliseums. It was the easiest way to spread culture and make the people feel connected to the other great cities of the Empire. It placated the people and made the population happier.
I would suggest that modern venues for entertainment have a similar function.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
One of the first things the Romans used to do after conquering a new area was build arenas and coliseums. It was the easiest way to spread culture and make the people feel connected to the other great cities of the Empire. It placated the people and made the population happier.
I would suggest that modern venues for entertainment have a similar function.
It was designed to keep the unwashed masses from rioting because they were simple folk and easy to distract.
I am amazed that there are so many here that want to be those people.
The Following User Says Thank You to BoLevi For This Useful Post:
Winnipeg's arena only cost the taxpayers 40 million, which I think was 1/3rd. I think the robber barons at Flames ownership want 50/50
Winnipeg’s arena cost ~ $200M or $250M in today’s dollars. Why do the Flames need to build one for $600M. Couldn’t we have a nice enough one for $400M?
Winnipeg’s arena cost ~ $200M or $250M in today’s dollars. Why do the Flames need to build one for $600M. Couldn’t we have a nice enough one for $400M?
Winnipeg's arena is a concrete box that screams 'Winnipeg'.
You'd better believe it crosses the minds of the people who put on those events. If the venue doesn't meet their requirements, they don't use it in the first place.
Sounds like a great opportunity for CSEC to generate more revenue and would justify more investment from them.
Building a new arena isn't just about the hockey club, it's part of a larger rejuvenation initiative by the city that started decades ago to revitalize our downtown and the Stampede park area. Like the BMO centre, it helps bring more and larger conventions, events, shows...
Even if the Flames moved, the city would still need to decommission the Dome at some point in the coming years and want to replace it with something. If they had to do it on their own, it'd likely be scaled back and less useable.
Not apples to apples, but I've gone to concerts in BC place, what an awesome experience. Much superior to any experience you'd get at the dome. seats were nicer, concourse was much nicer and then having the roof open was amazing.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
The Following User Says Thank You to monkeyman For This Useful Post:
Building a new arena isn't just about the hockey club, it's part of a larger rejuvenation initiative by the city that started decades ago to revitalize our downtown and the Stampede park area. Like the BMO centre, it helps bring more and larger conventions, events, shows...
Even if the Flames moved, the city would still need to decommission the Dome at some point in the coming years and want to replace it with something. If they had to do it on their own, it'd likely be scaled back and less useable.
Not apples to apples, but I've gone to concerts in BC place, what an awesome experience. Much superior to any experience you'd get at the dome. seats were nicer, concourse was much nicer and then having the roof open was amazing.
But how much does moving two blocks north and adding maybe another half-dozen events really move the needle?
But how much does moving two blocks north and adding maybe another half-dozen events really move the needle?
You can’t just look at the positives of having a new arena. You have to consider the negatives of not having an arena at all. The Dome has a life expectancy that is coming due.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 09-02-2022 at 12:11 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
But how much does moving two blocks north and adding maybe another half-dozen events really move the needle?
If the options are:
No arena and nothing changes vs Build new $500m arena and get extra benefit sure you can argue moving 2 blocks does nothing
But the reality is
No arena and Flames leave, no concerts, less events, etc plus spend to demolish OR Pay $XX (or $XXX) millions in reno to keep the stadium even viable for concerts and events and Hitmen ,etc games and Flames still leave.
The Flames WILL leave if they don't get an arena. Not next year, not in 3 years, but when their lease is up and any option of a new arena is gone.
We're not there yet, but every year we get closer.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jason14h For This Useful Post:
You can’t just look at the positives of having a new arena. You have to consider the negatives of not having an arena at all. The Done has a life expectancy that is coming due.
I'm saying there are hardly any positives at all compared to the status quo. A few more events, very slightly different location, substantially higher ticket prices.
The city has done more than their fair share by putting $320M on the table for this. It is CSEC who can't get their house in order enough to solve an existential business issue.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
I'm saying there are hardly any positives at all compared to the status quo. A few more events, very slightly different location, substantially higher ticket prices.
The city has done more than their fair share by putting $320M on the table for this. It is CSEC who can't get their house in order enough to solve an existential business issue.
It's really not even a CSEC issue.
With a $50 million cap, every team in the league could afford their own building.
So the building isn't a subsidy for the Flames or for Edwards, it is actually a subsidy to the players.
So people need to really question whether their tax dollars should or should not be going to James Neal or Darnell Nurse if you're in Edmonton.
I'm saying there are hardly any positives at all compared to the status quo. A few more events, very slightly different location, substantially higher ticket prices.
The status quo is a building that will eventually collapse if big money isn't spent on structural repairs.
Are you sure a new arena has ‘hardly any positives’ over that?
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
