I'm not clear on how they have money for this, since there's no West Village CRL and presumably the EV CRL funds are benchmarked for EV. Borrowing against the future CRL? Direct funding? Simply not paying anything yet?
This is just shortlisting to 2 firms who will do an analysis to figure out what level of remediation is needed based on potential usages, and the potential cost.
This is the equivalent to hiring an architechtural firm to assess what development options are possible on a plot of land you want to build and how much it might cost. Its hard to assess WV options until you know the potential cost/timeline of remediation, regardless of who is paying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire It Up
Further to some of the points made above on the creosote cleanup, does anyone have a reasonable idea of the process. For example, if the Province or City seek a polluter pay scenario, can they still go ahead and clean it up without delay then turn around and sue the polluter and flip them the bill when all is said and done? Otherwise, litigation to iron this out could take years.
It would be a litigious nightmare trying to get Domtar to pay if we are looking at hundred plus million, so I imagine they would negotiate some form of settlement where Domtar would cover a small portion of costs (as they have done in similar cases). This isn't a case of Domtar broke the law in their production and thus need to clean it up; they met and followed the environmental laws/regulations in place when they had their operations running. Was really the Gov'ts fault for having such brutal policies in place back in the day.
Getting Domtar to pay is somewhat analogous to writing a speeding ticket to someone years later, because you changed the speed limit to make it lower.
Last edited by Ducay; 09-07-2015 at 09:18 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
This question was posted in the CalgaryNext groundbreaking poll thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
This might be a stupid question, and I'm okay with that, but how does the football stadium become a "field house"?
There is only one field, and it will be the Stamps home for training camp, practices and of course games (as few as they are) for several months of the year. If they build this thing and call it the field house, will it alleviate the shortage of sports facilities in Calgary?
I think the answer to my own question is "no", because I'm positive the addition of one part-time soccer field isn't going to do that.
So it seems like that it will be a "field house" in name only, but calling it a "field house" is a way to get some public loot.
I wrote up a long-winded response, but figured it probably belongs in this thread more than that one, so here's my response to the question...
There are many different possible configurations that aren't compatible for all uses at all times. There would be some time required to convert from one setup to another and during that time, the whole facility would have to be out-of-use, or at least greatly reduced.
The CalgaryNext proposal is basically adding one additional configuration to the mix for CFL football.
The big question (that I haven't heard anyone ask King yet) is how long will it take to convert to and from the CFL mode, and how long will the building be out of commission for other uses while in CFL mode? Also, will 100% of the fieldhouse be unusable during Stampeder games, or will there still be areas (like basketball courts and workout rooms under the stands) that will still be accessible? Parking also needs to be addressed in that situation.
Also, as you say, what about Stamps practices? Plus, there's the question of Dinos and Colts games. It seems to me that the Stamps will have to have a practice facility away from the fieldhouse, or it would never be able to be in any configuration but football from June to November. I also think it will probably make the most sense for the Colts and Dinos to move their games either to Hellard Field at Shouldice or the University could either reduce the capacity of McMahon or build a smaller stadium on-campus for their home games.
On the CalgaryNext website, it says that it could host a soccer game in the morning and a Stamps game in the afternoon. That doesn't seem realistic to me, especially if they're going to need to repaint lines and add on-field advertising and stuff.
It's great to have a combined facility that can be used by everyone in the city 365 days of the year, but if it's off-limits for a considerable amount of the year because the Stamps are using it, it becomes much less useful for the whole city.
The other big question I have is what happens to the fieldhouse when the Stamps are hosting the Grey Cup? Currently, when McMahon has hosted the Grey Cup, they add around 11,000 temporary seats and it takes months to install them. If the CalgaryNext plan is to have a 30,000 seat stadium, expandable to 50,000, where are all those extra seats going to fit (it will almost double the building's capacity), how long will it take to install them, and will it make large parts of the fieldhouse unusable for the time the temporary seats are being installed and removed?
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
The big question (that I haven't heard anyone ask King yet) is how long will it take to convert to and from the CFL mode, and how long will the building be out of commission for other uses while in CFL mode? Also, will 100% of the fieldhouse be unusable during Stampeder games, or will there still be areas (like basketball courts and workout rooms under the stands) that will still be accessible? Parking also needs to be addressed in that situation.
Also, as you say, what about Stamps practices? Plus, there's the question of Dinos and Colts games. It seems to me that the Stamps will have to have a practice facility away from the fieldhouse, or it would never be able to be in any configuration but football from June to November. I also think it will probably make the most sense for the Colts and Dinos to move their games either to Hellard Field at Shouldice or the University could either reduce the capacity of McMahon or build a smaller stadium on-campus for their home games.
On the CalgaryNext website, it says that it could host a soccer game in the morning and a Stamps game in the afternoon. That doesn't seem realistic to me, especially if they're going to need to repaint lines and add on-field advertising and stuff.
It's great to have a combined facility that can be used by everyone in the city 365 days of the year, but if it's off-limits for a considerable amount of the year because the Stamps are using it, it becomes much less useful for the whole city.
King was asked that on one of the radio call in shows - not in quite that detail but the gist of it.
To his credit he came at it head on, recognizing they cant get public funds and then make it not very usable to the public. It has to be a fieldhouse first, and they recognize that. He elaborated a bit but nothing substantive that I remember.
I hope these are the questions the fieldhouse society is digging into as I'm pretty sure they are part of the process somewhere.
The other big question I have is what happens to the fieldhouse when the Stamps are hosting the Grey Cup? Currently, when McMahon has hosted the Grey Cup, they add around 11,000 temporary seats and it takes months to install them. If the CalgaryNext plan is to have a 30,000 seat stadium, expandable to 50,000, where are all those extra seats going to fit (it will almost double the building's capacity), how long will it take to install them, and will it make large parts of the fieldhouse unusable for the time the temporary seats are being installed and removed?
Remember that there is more to a field house than the actual field.
All of the gymnasiums are located off the pitch on one side of the building between the event centre and track. KK pointed that out.
My guess is that the additional seating would be temporary stands erected on that side of the field (which is currently devoid of stands in the rendereing) to complete the "bowl".
The seats likely won't take a long time to move. Jack Simpson does it quickly and I've watched Rogers Centre transform and it takes very little time.
I see no reason why the track can't be used at the same time as Stampeders practices. Especially since on field stuff isn't very long with regards to the day.
Jason Zaran was at the CalgaryNEXT presentation and he made sure to confirm that the CMFS was working with the CSEC and said that the Fieldhouse retained all of the orginal elements.
The Following User Says Thank You to craigwd For This Useful Post:
Interesting looking building. I like the concept of a partially retractable roof for a fieldhouse, still allowing for the elements to add atmosphere to the design, and costing a fraction of a full retractable roof. I also like that the exterior shots show that Moscow is populated entirely by supermodels.
It might have been discussed earlier in the thread, but I haven't read the whole thing.... Is the land that McMahon sits on owned by the UofC? Would they see a potential windfall from the demolishing and reallocation of the land?
Negotiations with the federal government changing immigration policy only to allow only ridiculously good looking people into the country, so we can have equally stunning exterior shots of our complex, should begin immediately.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
The CalgaryNext proposal is basically adding one additional configuration to the mix for CFL football.
The big question I would like Ken King to answer is:
Assuming the Flames $450M contribution represents the approximate cost of a new event centre, why do you think it is fair for the taxpayer to foot the bill on upgrading the fieldhouse to a CFL stadium?
Or, if you want to play the CRL creates tax revenues that wouldn't exist otherwise card, why do you think it is fair for the owners to not foot the bill on upgrading a fieldhouse to a CFL stadium for the CFL team that they own, will sell tickets for and profit from?
Foot that bill themselves and use the CRL to fix the roads, and you'll have my overwhelming support. Until then I don't really feel strongly one way or the other if they ever break groud.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
Forgive me if this came up and I missed it but have we heard any details about CS&E's $200M contribution? Specifically whether it's all upfront money or if it's like Katz's minimal upfront money scheme?
The big question I would like Ken King to answer is:
Assuming the Flames $450M contribution represents the approximate cost of a new event centre, why do you think it is fair for the taxpayer to foot the bill on upgrading the fieldhouse to a CFL stadium?
Or, if you want to play the CRL creates tax revenues that wouldn't exist otherwise card, why do you think it is fair for the owners to not foot the bill on upgrading a fieldhouse to a CFL stadium for the CFL team that they own, will sell tickets for and profit from?
Foot that bill themselves and use the CRL to fix the roads, and you'll have my overwhelming support. Until then I don't really feel strongly one way or the other if they ever break groud.
So what you're effectively saying is that Edmonton got public funding for the arena, but Calgary shouldn't.
Edmonton got $200M towards the arena through a CRL, why would Calgary not get access to a similar amount of money?
So, even if the additional $200M (on-top of the CRL) for the fieldhouse doesn't fly, which means the Stamps don't get a new home - and the city doesn't get the fieldhouse facility itself - there is still very recent history to draw upon that shows the Flames will get $200M of tax payers money, and that's not towards infrastructure changes, that's towards the building itself.
So, scratch the fieldhouse, and let's use exactly how Edmonton's arena deal is structured:
Flames ownership: $130M
Ticket surcharge: $125M
Contribution from the City through a CRL: $200M
There, the Flames now have a new arena.
Now it becomes a conversation about location. If not the West Village, then where? The outskirts of the city? No thanks, bad for most of the public and bad for business.
Edmonton got $200M towards the arena through a CRL, why would Calgary not get access to a similar amount of money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam_wmh
Because Edmontonians are suckers.
Exactly. Just because Edmontonians were desperate/dumb enough to put up municipal public funds for an arena, doesn't mean we need or have to make that same mistake.
This is a private for profit company asking for money to build a new building to house their entertainment product.
We wouldn't be lining up to build a new 'Banzai Waterslides' park for the owners because it was unprofitable for them to build their own venue, so why should this be any different? (Yes I this is a huge generalization, but rather to illustrate the fact people often forget pro sports are just a product to consume, rather than a community service). If the business isn't profitable when all their costs are considered, and they have to move, so be it. That is how a free market operates.
Remember that there is more to a field house than the actual field.
All of the gymnasiums are located off the pitch on one side of the building between the event centre and track. KK pointed that out.
My guess is that the additional seating would be temporary stands erected on that side of the field (which is currently devoid of stands in the rendereing) to complete the "bowl".
Bear in mind, that rendering is from the Calgary Multisport Fieldhouse Society, and NOT from CalgaryNext. It's their mockup of the proposed standalone fieldhouse. That design isn't intended to double as a CFL stadium.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Bear in mind, that rendering is from the Calgary Multisport Fieldhouse Society, and NOT from CalgaryNext. It's their mockup of the proposed standalone fieldhouse. That design isn't intended to double as a CFL stadium.
No I was referring to the design concepts KK presented in the STH meeting.
Kind of like the ones on the NEXT website. He pointed to the area without seating and said "these are gymnasiums". Like I said, the bowl isn't 360 yet, but that's probably where extra temp seating would go. In front of the gyms.
No I was referring to the design concepts KK presented in the STH meeting.
Kind of like the ones on the NEXT website. He pointed to the area without seating and said "these are gymnasiums". Like I said, the bowl isn't 360 yet, but that's probably where extra temp seating would go. In front of the gyms.
That's one rendering. Here are a couple of others that look quite different and already have some seating in the east end zone, with reduced seating on the north side...
Spoiler!
Either way, the question still remains. If they're adding 20,000 temporary seats to the building for a Grey Cup, where will they fit, how long will they take to install/uninstall, and how much of the fieldhouse will be unusable during that time?
Here's a timelapse video of the stadium in Arizona. Because they have the sliding field that must spend most of its time outside in the sun, they only roll it inside about 2 days before a game. They have temporary seats that are designed to be installed in less than 48 hours, so they can start installation after the field has been moved in and still have the seats ready for game time.
This is only about 8,800 seats. CalgaryNext would require more than twice as many temporary seats. That's why I'm curious what the plan is.
The Stamps may only host the Grey Cup every 9 years or so (probably more frequently if they move into a covered building, especially if SkyDome won't be used for Grey Cups -- and I don't know what the plan for that is with the Argos moving out), but if adding in 20,000 additional seats means that a significant amount of the fieldhouse will be off-limits, I don't consider that a good thing (and I say that as someone who would only likely ever visit the fieldhouse to attend a Stamps game).
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
We wouldn't be lining up to build a new 'Banzai Waterslides' park for the owners because it was unprofitable for them to build their own venue, so why should this be any different? (Yes I this is a huge generalization, but rather to illustrate the fact people often forget pro sports are just a product to consume, rather than a community service). If the business isn't profitable when all their costs are considered, and they have to move, so be it. That is how a free market operates.
What about the Leisure Centres? They're owned by the city and have big wave pools and waterslides.
As I posted somewhere earlier in this thread, the City's recreation facilities only make about half their annual expenses back through user fees, and the rest is subsidized by the City (as were the construction of the Centres, and subsequent renovations that have been carried out in them).
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Again I think we are talking the same thing.
The entire left side of those renderings are devoid of seating. That is likely where temp seating would be.
The gymnasiums are not in that area, they are in the glassed off rooms beyond that. One curve of the running track may be out of commission for a couple of weeks but that doesn't mean the rest of the track can't be used.
Beyond the long distance runners most of the high performance athletes I know mainly do sprint training on the straights.
Long time city planning employee told me today as long as the cleanup isn't a nightmare he thinks the west area would get approved but only for the hockey rink and thinks a fieldhouse/football stadium would be built elsewhere, possibly even stampede park if the saddledome gets torn down. I don't think this was ever mentioned before but that might work.
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
Long time city planning employee told me today as long as the cleanup isn't a nightmare he thinks the west area would get approved but only for the hockey rink and thinks a fieldhouse/football stadium would be built elsewhere, possibly even stampede park if the saddledome gets torn down. I don't think this was ever mentioned before but that might work.
All funding questions aside, that seems a lot more logical than trying to cram 2 large venues in 1 tiny area.
Problem is there isn't really the demand there to make financial sense to build a standalone covered stadium in that prime location, unless the city contributes a huge amount towards the fieldhouse aspect, which again, makes it less attractive.
