CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Bingo

literal?

You may want to google war crime.

You may want to google sarcasm or the word joke.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

You may want to google sarcasm or the word joke.

Really? Crap

Isn't he supposed to use green text for that? What's the point in having a sub culture meme if you don't use it?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Really? Crap

Isn't he supposed to use green text for that? What's the point in having a sub culture meme if you don't use it?

Sometimes you can't tell with people. CP tends to get jokes/sarcasm mixed up with actual fiscal viewpoints quite often. I don't blame you either Bingo, I was thinking the same thing you were.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wow more of what you think is what it is. Scary.

I "believe" that it's not dead, not with the city needing building concepts for an Olympic bid. I think it's politics and posturing, and sure you can call that denial, just as easy as I can suggest you're getting duped by hanging on to Nenshi's every word.

An Olympic bid is probably as likely to happen as CalgaryNEXT. Timing once again matters a lot. 2019 will have two elections, likely with cutting spending as the rallying cry against Liberal and NDP deficits. Taking on the (minimum) $2 billion security cost of the Olympics will be almost impossible to sell, nevermind all the other spending required. I also hate this concept that we have to host the Olympics to get things. We can't just do them for our own taxpaying citizens? We have to impress an insanely corrupt group just to get things built? Turrbile.

I don't hang on Nenshi's every word. I'm using things like future provincial and federal elections to back up my belief, not Nenshi's words. Plus the fact these things are processes that go through the usual phases. Nothing unusual or out of the ordinary has happened so far relative to other processes. The issue is the Flames lack the leverage to get this done. Surely you can admit they have none? So we, the taxpayer, have the leverage right now. The Flames need to blow us away, and they've failed miserably at it. We will get a new arena, that I have no doubt. But CalgaryNEXT was always a pipe dream that needed everything to go right to get built. Instead virtually nothing has gone right. If they can't even get 26% of people on a dedicated team page to support it....yeesh.

[Bingo]

^
I honestly think the Flames are trying to mesh what they need to what the city needs looking for a solution that helps both parties.

I don't necessarily think they've done the best job of marketing their aims to be honest, but I do think that was the intent.

That isn't to say they are in it for the city alone, though, I'm not that naive.

But the opening offer in any negotiation is just that an opening offer that can be countered. Does the city not want an arena district in the West Village? Or are they open to something similar but with differences? Not really saying keeps this dragging on in my opinion.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I also hate this concept that we have to host the Olympics to get things. We can't just do them for our own taxpaying citizens? We have to impress an insanely corrupt group just to get things built? Turrbile.

Isn't the point that if done with some sense of efficiency that hosting the olympics helps to pay for a lot of the infrastructure it requires, which stays around after the olympics are over? Vancouver's a pretty good example, that led to a total overhaul of the sea to sky highway and a whole new high density real estate development area near the speed skating oval in Richmond that wasn't there before, among other things... I don't think the games really put a dent in the cost of the Canada Line, but they had to build that anyway.

[Cappy]

CalgaryNEXT ==> West Village ==> East Village ==> McMahon ==> CFL ==> Repeat

^this thread^

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bingo

^
I honestly think the Flames are trying to mesh what they need to what the city needs looking for a solution that helps both parties.

I don't necessarily think they've done the best job of marketing their aims to be honest, but I do think that was the intent.

That isn't to say they are in it for the city alone, though, I'm not that naive.

But the opening offer in any negotiation is just that an opening offer that can be countered. Does the city not want an arena district in the West Village? Or are they open to something similar but with differences? Not really saying keeps this dragging on in my opinion.

I think it's pretty naive to think the Flames aren't putting their own interests first in any negotiation. It's why they initially sold the pricetag at $800 million, because that was what they viewed as a palatable number for the general public. Of course they now acknowledge the price is actually closer to $1.3 billion after badly bombing their initial pitch (city still says $1.8 billion)

I think Bunk has done a good job of explaining why it's likely the city wants this in the EV. You put it in the EV to drive up demand in the EV, so then the EV is fully developed faster, so then you can go focus on the WV and not take focus away from a still developing EV. In the long run sounds like better asset management from the city, which is what I want from my city.

These stadium/arena negotiations are almost always driven by some kind of leverage the team has. Generally of course that's moving. The Flames simply don't have that here, this isn't the Rams with LA in the distance. The potential markets all have serious question marks, unless it's Toronto 2 but obviously that has the Leafs/Sabres issue which will likely result in significant compensation for those teams. So the owners would have to pay big out of pocket anyway. It just seems to me the city can be patient, it holds all the cards, it can and should get the best deal possible and not capitulate to empty threats like moving.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Isn't the point that if done with some sense of efficiency that hosting the olympics helps to pay for a lot of the infrastructure it requires, which stays around after the olympics are over? Vancouver's a pretty good example, that led to a total overhaul of the sea to sky highway and a whole new high density real estate development area near the speed skating oval in Richmond that wasn't there before, among other things... I don't think the games really put a dent in the cost of the Canada Line, but they had to build that anyway.

My point is can't we just build the green line to the airport now, because it'd be great for us now? It's annoying that we have to spend money to...spend even more money! Hosting the Olympics as I said is a multi billion dollar security effort alone. It just annoys me we have to host the Olympics to get a transit line to the airport. Why can't just do it for the benefit of our own citizens, without the Olympics? Probably because it'd be kind of embarrassing for Calgary to have foreign visitors have to take the BRT and another bus to get to their hotel. It's like fear of being humiliated supersedes to needs of your citizens.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cappy

CalgaryNEXT ==> West Village ==> East Village ==> McMahon ==> CFL ==> Repeat

^this thread^

The thing that strikes me is that pretty much all the opposition is in relation to funding. Some posters dress it up with arguments about design or planning or usage, but their bottom line really is that no design or planning or usage will satisfy them as long as a single tax dollar is used. It's fine to have that position, but there should be no pretense that there is some sort of dialogue to be had.

Whereas those who support a sports/entertainment district are willing to lok at whatever funding models are there but don't insist on tax money being spent (though its hard to see it happening otherwise).

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think it's pretty naive to think the Flames aren't putting their own interests first in any negotiation. It's why they initially sold the pricetag at $800 million, because that was what they viewed as a palatable number for the general public. Of course they now acknowledge the price is actually closer to $1.3 billion after badly bombing their initial pitch (city still says $1.8 billion)

Not sure I was being naive as I never suggested the Flames were putting the city first at all.

All I said is that they have needs, and they tried to plug those needs into what the city was suggesting they needed.

And I added they sort of stepped on their own toes in marketing that.

I think the Flames $800M was silly, so to was the city's $1.8B.

I really didn't like how the Flames were inconsistent with building ages either. Commonwealth became "new" with a reno, but the Saddledome didn't, etc.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The thing that strikes me is that pretty much all the opposition is in relation to funding. Some posters dress it up with arguments about design or planning or usage, but their bottom line really is that no design or planning or usage will satisfy them as long as a single tax dollar is used. It's fine to have that position, but there should be no pretense that there is some sort of dialogue to be had.

Whereas those who support a sports/entertainment district are willing to lok at whatever funding models are there but don't insist on tax money being spent (though its hard to see it happening otherwise).

Not me. My opposition is 100% rooted in city planning and asset management. Don't care too much about the funding model, though I'm sure I'll bitch a bit if it ends up sucking.

CalgaryNEXT in the WV is a terrible idea from that standpoint. Comically bad. Turd sandwich. ***insert further hyperbole***

a) Put it where the existing fairgrounds infrastructure exists and the current entertainment areas are nearby.
b) Put it closer to the EV to help its build out instead of on the other side and harvesting EV demand.
c) Just say no to a big box on what will one day be a beautiful prime piece of riverfront real estate next to downtown.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Not me. My opposition is 100% rooted in city planning and asset management. Don't care too much about the funding model, though I'm sure I'll bitch a bit if it ends up sucking.

CalgaryNEXT in the WV is a terrible idea from that standpoint. Comically bad. Turd sandwich. ***insert further hyperbole***

a) Put it where the existing fairgrounds infrastructure exists and the current entertainment areas are nearby.
b) Put it closer to the EV to help its build out instead of on the other side and harvesting EV demand.
c) Just say no to a big box on what will one day be a beautiful prime piece of riverfront real estate next to downtown.

Fair enough. I don't think you are correct in your assessment of the infrastructure, or the effect on EV (and WV). IMO WV is never going to happen without a kickstart from a major project. And the riverfron eral estate? The city won't do the enviromental cleanup without a development. Developers won't move to do any kind of residential project without a cleanup. The city is hig=ding its head in the sand on the creosote issue.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Also, the mayor's half baked plan involves a lipstick on a pig reno of McMahon that maybe buys 15 years of additional useful life - the eventual replacement of it still needs to be dealt with. I know most politicians are short term thinkers focused on their next election, Nenshi included, but this "plan B" option can't be looked at in isolation. It simply makes sense to capitalize on the economies of scale from a combined facility when both are coming up for replacement at the same time.

It's not the mayor's plan, and there is no onus on him to resolve the McMahon situation. It is an alternative idea put forth by administration, as they were instructed to. IMO Nenshi has simply acknowledged it as one alternative (among many) to CNext plan. He probably believes it's a silly idea too, but that's not the smartest stance to take in the 'negotation'.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Are you sure that these are facts, or your opinions? Football has done quite well in the States, and most cities other than Toronto.

I know for myself and many people I know the biggest reason not to go to Stamps games is the stadium. Parking is brutal, the C-Train access creates a massive line up to go home, and if you have a 2nd beer you had better have a bladder buddy because bathrooms are tough.

Having said that I don't think you build a new stadium unless you can partner up and find other uses for it than football. And I'm fine with that.

New arenas and stadiums will only have incremental improvements in terms of access and egress. There has been no epiphany in the last 30 years about how to magically move 20000+ people at the same time. As always, it's a matter of tradeoffs (they could move cars extremely efficiently in Balzac at the expense of no public transit, 2 train lines in EV vs. 1 train and possibly better road set up in WV...although having less parking paradoxically improves vehicle egress too (though not sure about people), etc.).

The same applies for 20000 people trying to take a leak at the same time. It can be improved a little, but it's not like each stall is going to have a personal bathroom attendant.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The thing that strikes me is that pretty much all the opposition is in relation to funding. Some posters dress it up with arguments about design or planning or usage, but their bottom line really is that no design or planning or usage will satisfy them as long as a single tax dollar is used. It's fine to have that position, but there should be no pretense that there is some sort of dialogue to be had.

Whereas those who support a sports/entertainment district are willing to lok at whatever funding models are there but don't insist on tax money being spent (though its hard to see it happening otherwise).

=

"My side is thoughtful and able to consider the complexity of the issue, my opponents are stubborn ideologues."

There is no benefit to ridiculous characterizations like this. I'm very similar to Frequitudes position. There are simpletons on both sides of the issue, just as there are thoughtful/sensible people. If you think all of your opponents are simpletons, then you might be one too...

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The thing that strikes me is that pretty much all the opposition is in relation to funding. Some posters dress it up with arguments about design or planning or usage, but their bottom line really is that no design or planning or usage will satisfy them as long as a single tax dollar is used. It's fine to have that position, but there should be no pretense that there is some sort of dialogue to be had.

Whereas those who support a sports/entertainment district are willing to lok at whatever funding models are there but don't insist on tax money being spent (though its hard to see it happening otherwise).

I don't think that's fair. I'm completely opposed to this Calgarynext monstrosity, but I'm certainly not opposed to public funds or land or incentives going towards a new arena - just as long as it makes sense to the city.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

"My side is thoughtful and able to consider the complexity of the issue, my opponents are stubborn ideologues."

There is no benefit to ridiculous characterizations like this. I'm very similar to Frequitudes position. There are simpletons on both sides of the issue, just as there are thoughtful/sensible people. If you think all of your opponents are simpletons, then you might be one too...

Your mistake is thinking I have a side. I'm not very heavily invested into either location. I do think that the current notion of plan B will eliminate all but an arena.

But I still believe that posts which go on and on about development and design, but at the end of the day come down to gripes about spending tax dollars disclose a bottom line that's not open to debate. If that makes me the simpleton, so be it, I guess.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

I don't think that's fair. I'm completely opposed to this Calgarynext monstrosity, but I'm certainly not opposed to public funds or land or incentives going towards a new arena - just as long as it makes sense to the city.

Good to know. Why is it a monstrosity? Because of the preliminary design? What would make EV less of a monstrosity? Aside from not getting a fieldhouse?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

New arenas and stadiums will only have incremental improvements in terms of access and egress. There has been no epiphany in the last 30 years about how to magically move 20000+ people at the same time. As always, it's a matter of tradeoffs (they could move cars extremely efficiently in Balzac at the expense of no public transit, 2 train lines in EV vs. 1 train and possibly better road set up in WV...although having less parking paradoxically improves vehicle egress too (though not sure about people), etc.).

I'm no architect but I've been to games in Brooklyn, Glendale and Los Angeles, and they appear to have solved this issue with more floors, and each floor having their own facilities.

Neither the Dome or McMahon have that going on, which makes the bathrooms such a tough situation.

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Stamps, Dinos, Calgary premier amateur sport divisions, annual track/field events, Foothills FC, and a future MLS franchise (15 years out) should share the same stadium, with schedules interspersed throughout the year. This is akin to what the Saddledome is used for right now with the Flames, Roughnecks, and Hitmen.

The more "tenants" that can be used for a collective sporting space, the better.

I agree with your point about more tenants, but as an aside, IMO Calgary will never have an MLS club. For 3 reasons:

1. MLS has no interest in further expanding into Canada, their commissioner has stated this in a few interviews over the last year. (http://www.wakingthered.com/2015/12/...-mls-in-canada)
2. MLS has been focusing on expanding to markets that either have a strong history of support for lower divisions (Seattle, Vancouver, Montreal, Orlando, Minnesota), or are a massive media market (LAFC, NYCFC, Atlanta). Calgary has no history of strong support for any level of soccer ever, outside of maybe the Boomers for the one year they played, and they are not a massive media market.
3. It is heavily rumoured that a Canadian domestic league will begin in 2018, and Calgary will be a key market that league. It is also heavily rumoured that the Flames will be the owners of a club.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It's not the mayor's plan, and there is no onus on him to resolve the McMahon situation. It is an alternative idea put forth by administration, as they were instructed to. IMO Nenshi has simply acknowledged it as one alternative (among many) to CNext plan. He probably believes it's a silly idea too, but that's not the smartest stance to take in the 'negotation'.

It actually is Nenshi's plan.

[GioforPM]

Yeah, I have my doubts about MLS. But not about lower levels -it's a strong grassroots sport in Calgary. I think there might be higher level field lacrosse or rugby interest.