[Rumour] CMLC Revealing Masterplan in Jan?

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

It has been partially in words, and completely in actions.

Nope.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

It has been partially in words, and completely in actions.

'A public building should have public benefit' were their words.

Planning for a facility in Victoria Park, using city land, has been their actions.


In what way are either "pretending they think this facility is only important to the Flames ownership group"?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

It has been partially in words, and completely in actions.

Right. The city should bend over and be grateful that the Flames even want a new arena. The city should pay for 100% plus allow CSEC to operate the facility with no rental/property taxes, and take in 100% of revenue.

[Robbob]

Yes, if it gets a new ice plant. Our ice is horrible.

[Qwerty]

I enjoy watching Flame/City both playing hardball as an outsider.

What happens if the City of Calgary decides to bid/wins the Olympic bid? I assume it would be contingent on a new arena... What is the time period that the 2026 host would be announced?

At that point wouldn't the Flames hold all the cards as Calgary would need a tenant after the Olympic Games?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Right. The city should bend over and be grateful that the Flames even want a new arena. The city should pay for 100% plus allow CSEC to operate the facility with no rental/property taxes, and take in 100% of revenue.

Why the off the charts hyperbole? Do you honestly think he was saying that?

[calgaryred]

Originally Posted by Qwerty

I enjoy watching Flame/City both playing hardball as an outsider.

What happens if the City of Calgary decides to bid/wins the Olympic bid? I assume it would be contingent on a new arena... What is the time period that the 2026 host would be announced?

At that point wouldn't the Flames hold all the cards as Calgary would need a tenant after the Olympic Games?

No date has been announced but it will be in 2019

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Why the off the charts hyperbole? Do you honestly think he was saying that?

Off the charts hyperbole begetting off the charts hyperbole? C'mon it's not like Steam Whistle was communicating in measured nuance.

[Redliner]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'll be interested to see if there are any plans to do anything with the rail lines through there (from Elbow River to Macleod Trail). Am I imagining things, or is the rail bridge over the Elbow River approaching the end of its life cycle?

It would probably be as simple as a pedestrian overpass at 6 St, but the rail lines feel like a substantial barrier to creating any flow/connectivity between Vic Park and EV. It would be cool if they could sink the tracks, but I'd imagine more likely would be elevating them from a new bridge over the river until 4 St.

You think things are ugly between the city and the Flames? The argument over who would pay for relocating rail lines would make the arena funding debate look like a spitball fight.... and the cost of building or changing rail infrastructure is staggering.

While I agree that the railway does seem to act like a barrier between DT and the beltline or Vic Park, that is CP's transcontinental main line and those tracks aren't going anywhere. For the money it would take to put them in a tunnel/trench or elevate them we could probably build 3 new arenas.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Why the off the charts hyperbole? Do you honestly think he was saying that?

Because what he was saying was just as ridiculous.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Because what he was saying was just as ridiculous.

Wasn't he just saying that the city including the building in an Olympic bid, a development plan, and in the mayor's reelection campaign is sort of admitting the public benefit that they want proven?

You came back with bend over, 100% of the cost, be grateful ... I think the hyperbole meter broke on your response.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wasn't he just saying that the city including the building in an Olympic bid, a development plan, and in the mayor's reelection campaign is sort of admitting the public benefit that they want proven?

You came back with bend over, 100% of the cost, be grateful ... I think the hyperbole meter broke on your response.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

To your point, I think the city does feel an arena in this location has value to the city. I'd prefer it if they stopped pretending they think this facility is only important to the Flames ownership group and that the Flames are the only beneficiaries of a facility like this.

He's saying that the city hasn't indicated desire for a new arena whereas what you've mentioned completely contradicts that, and he himself acknowledges. The city itself has indicated interest in a new arena, but at a reasonable price. I was responded facetiously because he's saying the city is being disingenuous, and thus not doing enough. So just paying for the whole thing would solve that.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Redliner

You think things are ugly between the city and the Flames? The argument over who would pay for relocating rail lines would make the arena funding debate look like a spitball fight.... and the cost of building or changing rail infrastructure is staggering.

While I agree that the railway does seem to act like a barrier between DT and the beltline or Vic Park, that is CP's transcontinental main line and those tracks aren't going anywhere. For the money it would take to put them in a tunnel/trench or elevate them we could probably build 3 new arenas.

Yes, the tracks aren’t going anywhere. What will happen is another underpass at 6th Street, similar to the one at 4th Street. Also development beside the tracks could have +15 type connections.

To move the tracks would either require building completely new CP infrastructure in a new place bypassing the city - all the CP yards etc included, or raising/lowering the line in place (which would have to be done in a way that allows the current line to remain open while the work is done). This type of work is insanely expensive, because there is an insane amount of temporary work that must be done. Raising would probably be easier and cheaper than lowering, but does anyone want to pay a billion dollars to have a raised heavy rail line through the centre city, and have 10 years of disruption?

Lowering would be great for the city, but this would be insanely expensive and disruptive. It would be have to be done Boston big dig style.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Joborule

He's saying that the city hasn't indicated desire for a new arena whereas what you've mentioned completely contradicts that, and he himself acknowledges. The city itself has indicated interest in a new arena, but at a reasonable price. I was responded facetiously because he's saying the city is being disingenuous, and thus not doing enough. So just paying for the whole thing would solve that.

I've heard the show us the public gain thing many times. I think he's referring to that as much as anything.

If so then he had a point ... they've demonstrated the public gain by having the arena in development and olympic plans from the get go.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If so then he had a point ... they've demonstrated the public gain by having the arena in development and olympic plans from the get go.

So... you're saying that Steam Whistle was being completely disingenuous when he said "partially in words, and completely in actions"?

I really don't get your argument here. No one (including the City) has ever indicated that the city had no interest whatsoever in a replacement arena.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Redliner

While I agree that the railway does seem to act like a barrier between DT and the beltline or Vic Park, that is CP's transcontinental main line and those tracks aren't going anywhere. For the money it would take to put them in a tunnel/trench or elevate them we could probably build 3 new arenas.

I know it's insanely expensive - my questions were all based on the need for a new bridge over the river...something I recall hearing about, but I'm not at all certain of details (whether refurbishment is possible without much operational disruption). Coupled with the Green Line running parrallel in that section, and also requiring it's own bridge, it isn't a crazy idea, and I'm sure it's been considered.

Checking again the current plan for green line, it does appear to be street level from the river to 4 St (Olympic Way) before going underground, but that station design seems to still be a bit up in the air. It looks like the Green Line will be elevated for some sections in Inglewood.

It wouldn't have been cheap either way, but killing two birds with one stone while there are not any space or engineering constraints. It's a now or never thing - surface level rail (heavy or light) sucks, but it looks like we'll be stuck with it.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Yes, if it gets a new ice plant. Our ice is horrible.

That likely won't change. The ice plant was completely replaced after the flood in 2013 and nothing really improved. I think it's just an unfortunate side effect of the number of different events held in the building now. Busier buildings tend to have the worst ice. Between the Flames, Hitmen, and Roughnecks, there aren't that many nights where the building is unused during the season. Throw in a few concerts, and the off nights are reduced further.

Originally Posted by Qwerty

I enjoy watching Flame/City both playing hardball as an outsider.

What happens if the City of Calgary decides to bid/wins the Olympic bid? I assume it would be contingent on a new arena... What is the time period that the 2026 host would be announced?

At that point wouldn't the Flames hold all the cards as Calgary would need a tenant after the Olympic Games?

Right now, the IOC is conducting a process where interested cities can express their interest and receive information about bidding. Cities have to give the IOC formal notice of their intentions to bid by March 31, 2018. Then, the formal campaigning process will begin next October, with a final decision made at the IOC meeting in September 2019.

The danger with the Flames thinking they hold all the cards is that they risk being away from the table when the cards are dealt. The only thing worse for them than not getting a new arena would be Calgary building a new arena that the Flames didn't have input on. One thing they certainly don't want to be is just a tenant in a new building.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Parallex

So... you're saying that Steam Whistle was being completely disingenuous when he said "partially in words, and completely in actions"?

I really don't get your argument here. No one (including the City) has ever indicated that the city had no interest whatsoever in a replacement arena.

I guess I'll say it again ...

I think he was getting at the city (Nenshi) suggesting the CSEC had to prove the public good of an arena that the city has had featured prominently in both an election, a redevelopment of an area and an olympic bid.

That the city has demonstrated the public good with their actions.

After that all I pointed out was the hyperbole which was rather rich and thick.

[morgin]

Back to the main topic - were any of our resident realtors or brokers at the real estate forum and see this? Any insider info?

[Enoch Root]

A few things jump out at me from that news release:

1) As I argued earlier, one of the primary sticking points, if not THE sticking point of the contention between the city and CSEC is location, and the ability to develop around it. The city has a vision for what they would like to build around an arena, and CSEC has their own vision for surrounding development. I think the bottom line here is that an arena, in and of itself, is not a great investment (in a city this size), but the surrounding development tips the scales and defines the value.

2) Anyone that has argued that an arena doesn't benefit the city needs to re-evaluate. The city is flat out stating that they value having a new arena with that news release.

3) I have been amazed at how little the Stampede board has been discussed in these threads. Specifically, a new arena, in the Stampede grounds, would be very beneficial to them. And yet there is no talk about how they might contribute to the costs. To me, this release demonstrates once again, that there is a benefit to them as well (and therefore they should be involved in the financing solution)