CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Speaking of MSG. It is almost criminal what they demolished to build it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/penn-...s-2011-12?op=1

Sorry for the derailment

Aside from old aesthetics, the new Penn Station works far better, now you can connect from a subway to an Amtrak in 5 minutes or connect an airport bus in about the same time.

The old Penn Station was great for the movies like strangers on a train and of course Marilyn's the seven year itch but it sucked for moving people.

[trew]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

No sweeteners required - just removal of pollutants. Proximity to downtown/river = instant desirability.

The same was true for EV. Sadly, social problems aren't as easy to deal with.

The question to consider is speed of development, and what happens with not yet developed land until its time comes (depending on how disrupted it is by clean up).

Does anyone have a good link to the specific areas that will be dug up for cleanup?

I found a bunch of stuff online by doing Google searches about "Canadian Creosote" site cleanup. I don't have them handy right now, but I seem to recall the actual report is available and goes into the specifics of the land and possible remediation required.

My recollection of what was said, for what it is worth, is that the land near the river between the two car dealerships is the center of the pollution, and pretty much everything within a few hundred feet has to be dug up and completely replaced.

You can see the exact location on Google Maps: https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.04736...!3m1!1e3?hl=en (Pretty much everything on the page needs extensive cleanup). The epicenter of the pollution is the big green waste oil tank immediately over the basin that all of the Creosote is collecting into.

Candian Creosote also owned the entirety of the current GSL lands, but mostly used this land for equipment storage and offices. It's not saturated with pollution, but there's going to be buried equipment and hot areas to deal with. To me it sounds like remediating this part of the West Village will be more "typical" of cleanup on any Calgary rail-side industrial land (including proposed East Village locations for a new Arena).

The CalgaryNEXT proposal, unsurprisingly, has the Fieldhouse and Arena on the less polluted lands.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by trew

The CalgaryNEXT proposal, unsurprisingly, has the Fieldhouse and Arena on the less polluted lands.

Well I don't believe that's strategic given the facility can't be built on the edge of the land bordering the river.

[Cappy]

I don't think it matters to the city whether it sits on polluted lands in the WV. CalgaryNext wants the CRL money if the WV for the arena (plus a portion of the lands under the CRL)

The issue, I think, is the facility limits the amount of CRL available plus the funds to be able to clean up and develop the WV

[getbak]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Does anyone have a good link to the specific areas that will be dug up for cleanup?

Here's the link to the full city report on CalgaryNext from April: http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sire...a&itemid=43230


The document dealing with the contamination is Attachment #5: Environmental Background Report


The worst of the contamination is under Renfrew Chrysler. As proposed, most of CalgaryNext would be on top of land that is currently contaminated in excess of human health guidelines.

[trew]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well I don't believe that's strategic given the facility can't be built on the edge of the land bordering the river.

Well, given that the brown and blue parts of this image are the most polluted lands, I would say that the arena location is strategic in that regard.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I think the bigger question is the mechanical and structural issues with McMahon (and the Saddledome). If it turns out one or both need significant repairs to foundation, ice plant, sound system, wiring, etc., could be looking at $100m + there alone to fix aging buildings. Add in the need for a fieldhouse (at $200m minimum) and that gets you pretty close to the city pay portion for the actual facilities portion of the CalgaryNEXT project, or a $500m arena and a $400m stadium/fieldhouse project in separate locations.

Infrastructure and remediation in West Village are inevitable since the city bought into that land, and that's going to be a massive expenditure in the next 5-20 years regardless. That's something taxpayers should really be up in arms about. Why did the city buy tainted land, and why have they done so little about the pollution.

Go check the numbers again. The flames are asking the city for roughly 900 million of the 1.3 billion in total costs.

[The Familia]

Originally Posted by trew

Well, given that the brown and blue parts of this image are the most polluted lands, I would say that the arena location is strategic in that regard.

Ugh...anytime any image of that hunk of trash shows up I cringe. I would be embarrassed to have that junk built in this city. I'll keep what we have instead.

[Cappy]

I feel like the design of CalgaryNext is a throwback to the idea of large sports complexes. Entertainment destinations a la skydome, kingdome, etc. Multi-purpose facilities that are large and cater to your every need. You saw baseball move away from that experience right after skydome was built and move towards Camden, Coors, and Safeco.

Now, baseball stadiums are more a piece of the area itself rather than the main attraction. It doesn't define the area.

Target field has the smallest footprint of any baseball field (maybe Fenway?) and it offers an intimate experience with amenities placed around it.

CalgaryNext is large, cold, sterile and devoid of any charm whatsoever.

I hope whatever iteration they choose, they make the arena blend into the area around it rather than overwhelming it.

Given the flames, and the supporters in the city, want a statement piece ("world class") I can't imagine we see any plans go in that direction.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Ugh...anytime any image of that hunk of trash shows up I cringe. I would be embarrassed to have that junk built in this city. I'll keep what we have instead.

The best part of the plan is the the proposed highly desirable condo buildings with congested freeways on either side of them.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by trew

Well, given that the brown and blue parts of this image are the most polluted lands, I would say that the arena location is strategic in that regard.

You are wearing a tinfoil hat if you believe the Flames are purposely avoiding building the facilities on the most polluted land. Look at your map and how it shows major roads on both sides of the facility and ask yourself how that works if they put it in the corner on the brown area without adding extra roads and overall cost and complexity to the project.

[Table 5]

I don't think the Flames are avoiding building on polluted land. What they do seem to be avoiding is doing any plan that requires the re-alignment of Bow Trail... which is something that would really benefit West Village, but is of course something that adds to the overall cost.

The Flames plan for West Village might be good for them, but it's pretty mediocre in terms of a successful community design.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Aside from old aesthetics, the new Penn Station works far better, now you can connect from a subway to an Amtrak in 5 minutes or connect an airport bus in about the same time.

The old Penn Station was great for the movies like strangers on a train and of course Marilyn's the seven year itch but it sucked for moving people.

Interesting tidbit, MSG has to move in 7 years for Penn Station expansion. Pretty crazy seeing as they just dropped $1B in renovations 3 years ago. Probably cost another $1B to rebuild at a new site.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by GGG

Go check the numbers again. The flames are asking the city for roughly 900 million of the 1.3 billion in total costs.

You are including infrastructure costs in that number. The actual facility is closer to $900m. The infrastructure needs to be put in regardless of whether it's CalgaryNext or office/condo developments with the odd public infrastructure piece to make it "livable".

In the latter scenario, the city is paying that and hoping land sales, CRL and business tax recoups it. In the former scenario, the city would also be asked to front it and hope that CRL, remaining land sales, and tax spinoffs to provincial and federal coffers from beer, parking, tickets, etc. come back and reimburse their investment.

It's a bit disingenuous to call those facility costs, but the city would be silly not to try to include those for the purposes of negotiation.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I don't think the Flames are avoiding building on polluted land. What they do seem to be avoiding is doing any plan that requires the re-alignment of Bow Trail... which is something that would really benefit West Village, but is of course something that adds to the overall cost.

The Flames plan for West Village might be good for them, but it's pretty mediocre in terms of a successful community design.

Which is totally silly becuase reclamation is going to require digging up the whole area, so moving the roads isn't going to add any incremental cost. It's basically a lack of imagination shown here.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I don't think the Flames are avoiding building on polluted land. What they do seem to be avoiding is doing any plan that requires the re-alignment of Bow Trail... which is something that would really benefit West Village, but is of course something that adds to the overall cost.

The Flames plan for West Village might be good for them, but it's pretty mediocre in terms of a successful community design.

Wouldn't the city be planning any major roadway changes such as Bow Trail? I don't see any value for the city in the Flames being involved in overhauling the Bow/Crowchild mess. I do agree that's something that needs to be addressed CalgaryNEXT or not. I know there's a lot of animosity by some towards CalgaryNEXT but let's not pretend that the city hasn't been sitting on its hands when it comes to the Bow/Crowchild bottle neck and creosote cleanup.

[trew]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You are wearing a tinfoil hat if you believe the Flames are purposely avoiding building the facilities on the most polluted land. Look at your map and how it shows major roads on both sides of the facility and ask yourself how that works if they put it in the corner on the brown area without adding extra roads and overall cost and complexity to the project.

I surrender my tinfoil hat. It is a flimsy thing and clearly no match for your weathered contrarian helmet.

All I am saying is that If the Flames want an arena built in the West Village within five or so years after a decision is made, they pretty much have to put it where they are proposing. Hence, I find their choice of location "unsurprising".

If you believe they are open to longer term development options, and are basing their location on other factors, then sure, that's plausible... and also unsurprising.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

You are including infrastructure costs in that number. The actual facility is closer to $900m. The infrastructure needs to be put in regardless of whether it's CalgaryNext or office/condo developments with the odd public infrastructure piece to make it "livable".

In the latter scenario, the city is paying that and hoping land sales, CRL and business tax recoups it. In the former scenario, the city would also be asked to front it and hope that CRL, remaining land sales, and tax spinoffs to provincial and federal coffers from beer, parking, tickets, etc. come back and reimburse their investment.

It's a bit disingenuous to call those facility costs, but the city would be silly not to try to include those for the purposes of negotiation.

Incorrect.

The city's initial, and admittedly disingenuous, assessment of the all in costs was $1.8B.

It was the Flames own response to this where the Flames conceded that the all in cost associated with Calgary next is $1.3B and that the other $500M should be characterized as "would have done anyways".

I agree with this assessment and broke it down a couple pages back:
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=2617

[nik-]

So, the city including the costs is disingenuous, but the Flames ignoring them because they would have been done anyway is cool?

The point is that the flames want it done on their timeline, to their incredible benefit, and it's an actual part of the cost. So no, it's not disingenuous.

That's what it costs, whether it's on the Flames timetable or years further out when the EV is done building out.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by nik-

So, the city including the costs is disingenuous, but the Flames ignoring them because they would have been done anyway is cool?

The point is that the flames want it done on their timeline, to their incredible benefit, and it's an actual part of the cost. So no, it's not disingenuous.

That's what it costs, whether it's on the Flames timetable or years further out when the EV is done building out.

Heck no. If you've been following me in this thread you'd know that I'm very pro-city here and have lambasted the Flames at lengths about how disingenuous and intellectually insulting their opening offer was ($980M which just covered inside battery limits scope).