I don't think anyone is opposed to a new arena (other than maybe the Stampede board if it's not on their site anymore), people just don't want to be building it for the enjoyment of the owners and wealthier fans while the average fan ends up the big loser.
The fact no good Edmonton threw away money for their arena doesn't not mean actually good Calgary has to do the same. The Bell Centre, the ACC and Riot Arena were all 100% privately financed. This one could be as well and of course I expect the owners to try and get money, I just hope they aren't actually expecting money.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
That's your opinion and as much as we pile on Edmonton they are already ahead of Calgary in the arts department and that gap will only increase as they get their new facility.
Personally I'm not going to spend a lot of time in this thread as it's just going to be people of differing opinions butting heads. We all know the new facilities will happen in Calgary and I'm content in watching it all play out.
then maybe the city should invest in the arts instead of a sports building with the ancillary benefit of 2-5 large concerts a year.
Maybe Calgary should give money to Jubilee auditorium or Theatre Calgary?
A hundred million or so.
That would probably go a long way for arts in the city, much further than Taylor Swift shows every 18 months.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
The dome is dark, dingy and poorly laid out with massive lines for bathrooms and concessions and a poorly planned concourse. It'd be cool to have the convenience of the amenities of a new rink, and it would be cool to have a district around the rink with good food and bars. It's kind of shocking how slim the pickings are around the dome.
However - I still love the dome and am happy going there. Particularly after a few beers. And I will miss it like hell when it's gone. I believe the CFLP have said that they wouldn't consider renovating the dome, but it'd be cool if they would consider doing that instead. It's a landmark.
What's the value of being able to proudly call yourself a "world class city" besides using it as a justification to spend other peoples' money on things you want.
There is a lot of theory behind it actually. Richard Florida (who, by the way, just meet with the Mayor) being one of the more famous proponents.
The point is that world class cities (which includes strong arts and culture) can attract the best of the young workers from national and international migration, which then makes the cities attractive to business as it reduces the acquisition cost of talented workers. Head office centers then form, that are then part of multi-generational strength as more people stay and invest in the community.
Add in some favorable tax policies and you've got the makings of a hot economy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to j_j For This Useful Post:
There is a lot of theory behind it actually. Richard Florida (who, by the way, just meet with the Mayor) being one of the more famous proponents.
The point is that world class cities (which includes strong arts and culture) can attract the best of the young workers from national and international migration, which then makes the cities attractive to business as it reduces the acquisition cost of talented workers. Head office centers then form, that are then part of multi-generational strength as more people stay and invest in the community.
Add in some favorable tax policies and you've got the makings of a hot economy.
If only Calgary could attract more more people, then the economy in Calgary wouldn't be so stagnant.
Wait, is this 1987?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
There is a lot of theory behind it actually. Richard Florida (who, by the way, just meet with the Mayor) being one of the more famous proponents.
The point is that world class cities (which includes strong arts and culture) can attract the best of the young workers from national and international migration, which then makes the cities attractive to business as it reduces the acquisition cost of talented workers. Head office centers then form, that are then part of multi-generational strength as more people stay and invest in the community.
Add in some favorable tax policies and you've got the makings of a hot economy.
I'm very aware of Richard Florida and I don't think he would say that a giant publicly subsidized sporting arena contributes to a world class city. Infact, what he calls world class cities are good transport systems, high urban density and connectivity, walkable and pedestrianized seats, emphasis on culture (which in this sense is lots of different types of venues, museums) and cultivating a "creative class."
It is highly dubious to conclude that a big venue for Maroon 5 and Miley Cyrus in any way helps cultivate the creative class that Florida routinely talks about. Infact, I would offer that spending money on a giant arena takes money away from the spending on the cultural assets that Florida would support.
For my experience at the 3-5 games I go to a year, I think the Saddledome is just fine the way it is. I get my beer and take my men's room breaks in the commercial breaks.
I'm there for the hockey, and the heroin beer. The Flames have delivered that every time I've been to a game. To sit there and say the facility is an embarrassment is truly sounding like a first world problem IMO.
__________________
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to shermanator For This Useful Post:
That's your opinion and as much as we pile on Edmonton they are already ahead of Calgary in the arts department and that gap will only increase as they get their new facility.
Personally I'm not going to spend a lot of time in this thread as it's just going to be people of differing opinions butting heads. We all know the new facilities will happen in Calgary and I'm content in watching it all play out.
What's the value of being able to proudly call yourself a "world class city" besides using it as a justification to spend other peoples' money on things you want.
The irony of a left winger making this statement was so beautiful it made re-reading all the same old arguments in this thread totally worth it!
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
It is highly dubious to conclude that a big venue for Maroon 5 and Miley Cyrus in any way helps cultivate the creative class that Florida routinely talks about.
I wasn't doing that. But lets go with it. Calgary does get skipped over--this is a fact--and it's not just the crappy concerts, it's also major conventions, worlds fairs/expos, women's world cup, etc. all that would not happen with big modern facilities. So yeah, I think that Saddledome/McMahon problems are holding back our national and international reputation-and a price is being paid.
I don't think Florida says it is blanket rule that public investments on facilities never make sense, there are exceptions.
The ring road negotiations went so fast and swimmingly, what could possibly go wrong?
This would be different because it's private sector.
Let me be clear I'm playing devil's advocate here but given the signals coming from the city are pretty clear the majority of council aren't in favour of providing land (and land is something the Tsuu T'ina have in spades and might well donate to a partnership). It seems the that the City doesn't consider the Flames to be a significant revenue generator for the area, so why not explore other options that would keep the Flames 'in' Calgary?
An arena/stadium/casino/night club/hotel district could be quite the revenue generator for the Flames and their First Nations partner (not it the sports teams obviously). It's no less appealing than Firepark and better than something out in the suburbs.
If nothing else, it might result in the City viewing the project in a different light.
This is out of left field but give it some thought before branding it completely without merit.
Could a sports and entertainment complex be built on Tsuu T’ina land leased to the Flames? Lack of LRT access is one obvious drawback.
Since we're throwing out crazy ideas maybe the Flames and the city should look at building a sports and entertainment complex on the Paskapoo slope just east of COP where there was a recent proposal for some sort of commercial and retail district. As an alternative, maybe the Flames can work with the UofC and develop on the West Campus land. They could build the new football stadium and still host the Dino's and the UofC student population. Additionally, I could easily walk to the Flames games.
Last edited by calgarygeologist; 11-26-2014 at 11:04 AM.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
The Saddledome was built for the Olympics, so the Flames have already reaped the benefits of someone else's money going to build a facility for them once.
"Ah, but the revenue opportunities are much greater with our own building!" they say. Well then - if there's a business case that long-term the club will make more money with their own arena complex, then they don't need public money, do they? If there isn't such a business case, then what would be the point of construction at all?
It'd be different if the Saddledome was falling apart (like McMahon) and some kind of new facility MUST be built. However, there is no reason the Flames couldn't stay at the Saddledome for another 25 years, if your main concern is "we need a place to seat 18 000+ people to watch a hockey team" and not "the hockey team owning a new arena increases profit and value for that team immensely."
I'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices to see the Flames in a much nicer facility, and especially happier to be able to see the Stamps in something other than an ancient gladiatorial arena. If that's delayed a few years while the Flames search - hopefully unsuccessfully - for government subsidies, then so be it.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
