The delivering of that vision? Pathetic. A junior high student project would've been better than that ####.
For how much it'll cost for the contamination cleanup. You better have a strong ass pitch to get majority of the city supporting the costs for the project.
I still don’t know how ANYONE who was involved in that presentation and how it went down managed to keep their jobs after that.
They didn’t consult with the city at all before putting together a proposal which would have required the city to put together well over a billion dollars in investment.
How in the world do you screw up that badly and keep your job? It’s not just an error either, it’s complete incompetence.
That’s even before considering that it wasn’t a great solution for many of the things it was trying to be.
Sure, but a) it's a bit more layered than that when it comes to revenue generation for these facilities (new design, technologies and location can attract new events and opportunities), b) if a private firm wants to help fund some or all of it and if a new stadium / development spurs surrounding investment and therefore increased tax revenue, and c) it doesn't take away the fact that McMahon is a 60+ year old crumbling joke.
Look at all that amazing development the Saddledome created around it. It's a true entertainment hub. Only took like 20 years for a single apartment to be built anywhere close.
Edmonton's new arena has gravel lots beside it. All it did was steal development from elsewhere in their downtown and even then it's still sparse.
Look at all that amazing development the Saddledome created around it. It's a true entertainment hub. Only took like 20 years for a single apartment to be built anywhere close.
Edmonton's new arena has gravel lots beside it. All it did was steal development from elsewhere in their downtown and even then it's still sparse.
A) I don't know if you know this, but the Saddledome was built in a completely different era.
B) You're forgetting about all the other development around the arena as well, but way to highlight a 'gravel lot'. Also, what development did it 'steal', and from what part of downtown?
A) I don't know if you know this, but the Saddledome was built in a completely different era.
B) You're forgetting about all the other development around the arena as well, but way to highlight a 'gravel lot'. Also, what development did it 'steal', and from what part of downtown?
40 years in and there is barely anything around the Saddledome. Pretending it spurred some type of revitalization for that area is a joke.
As for Edmonton, development in the Quarters CRL has completely stalled and shifted to the Capital City CRL where the Arena is..and it's not that much development if you've been there and looked at it.
If you need a quote:
"A similar CRL for The Quarters has also been “almost forgotten,” Caterina said, after the third CRL for the Ice District, took all the attention away from the first two."
40 years in and there is barely anything around the Saddledome. Pretending it spurred some type of revitalization for that area is a joke.
Okay? I don't think anyone claimed that it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinit47
The people who run the city of Calgary aren't stupid. Arenas are at best a supplement to an areas development plan.
Well of course; an arena itself doesn't spur development; a development plan, such as the Rivers District Master Plan, does; arenas would be part of that plan, much in the same way a convention centre, a hotel, residential towers, etc. are. The East Village was planned this way, and I'd say it's made a pretty significant difference on that end of downtown in terms of bringing investment and life into the area.
Anytime ye old NEXT is brought up I remind myself how insane it was that they thought they could throw together a PowerPoint in four minutes and we'd all just be on our knees ready to hand over the money based off that. One of the all-time worst misreads I've ever seen, legitimately hilarious to think about in hindsight.
I remember the hockey arena part of the proposal literally looked like two different arenas depending on which slide of the presentation you were looking at. I don't think they even reviewed the presentation enough to notice.
They had pictures of Jarome Iginla in the lobby when he didn't even play for the team. They literally just dusted off a 3 year old rendering and didn't bother to update it when they asked for a billion dollars.
I'd say it's pretty well established that it is a bad economic investment of public funds. It basically boils down to teams shouldn't be paying 100 million/year in players salaries if they can't afford to invest say 50 million/year in a building for their business.
The bigger question is how to undo it all. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum and the league and owners love to play cities against each other and can usually find a city, state or province willing to pay up. The people in a city generally don't want to lose their team and the people and local politicians are basically held hostage.
There needs to be legislation on the national level in both countries to limit or ban the subsidization of stadiums, or there just isn't an easy way out of this.
Somewhat ironically, when the public does pony up for these new stadiums (so they can increase revenue), they are pricing a lot of the public out from going to the games or making it a lot more expensive for the people who go. It would be nice to see a reset in all of this, but it sure doesn't seem very likely.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
One or two threads ago there was a discussion about a mostly glass-encased football stadium and I thought that idea was pretty neat for our climate. The individual panels open during nice weather, and close up during winter.
Two things - firstly, did you read the report, or are you just dismissing it because you think it's wrong because it was commissioned by a municipal body? Secondly, is your position that development cannibalizes other areas of a city? If so, why is this is a bad thing? Universal urban growth is primarily based upon the movement and relocation of residential and commercial opportunities based into new and revitalized developments, homes, neighborhoods, towers, etc. These projects are what help keep a city growing, investment incoming, and jobs created. This growth is happening everywhere, all the time, all over the world, every day. I guess I'd just like to know why this is a bad thing... we live in a free market economy, so suggesting we are 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' is a bit myopic within this context. It seems you are suggesting there might be something fundamentally wrong with new development because of this.
Again, assuming you have read it, are you suggesting that the information in the EY report is inaccurate? If so, where, specifically, does it go wrong within which particular data set or forecasting?
The answers you seek are provided in the past couple of pages by a number of people. You have been led to water, it is up to you to decide if you want to drink.
They had pictures of Jarome Iginla in the lobby when he didn't even play for the team. They literally just dusted off a 3 year old rendering and didn't bother to update it when they asked for a billion dollars.
I strongly believe that Calgary NEXT was purely an attempt to anchor the discussions to make their real arena ask seem more reasonable rather then a legitimate attempt to build it based on how it was presented and how poorly thought out it was when they did present it vs the proposal when it was moved to the stampede grounds.
One or two threads ago there was a discussion about a mostly glass-encased football stadium and I thought that idea was pretty neat for our climate. The individual panels open during nice weather, and close up during winter.
That's what they did with the Vikings' new stadium in Minnesota.
It also cost over $1 billion USD almost a decade ago.
Even a cheaper option at a CFL-scale would be a hard sell for Calgary... maybe as the centerpiece of an Olympic bid with big contributions from the provincial and federal governments.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
I'd say it's pretty well established that it is a bad economic investment of public funds. It basically boils down to teams shouldn't be paying 100 million/year in players salaries if they can't afford to invest say 50 million/year in a building for their business.
The bigger question is how to undo it all....
I actually am pretty proud of Calgary for this. We offered to pony up money but pushed back when they tried to strong arm us into paying more. Katz did the same thing in Edmonton that the Flames did when they decided they didn't want to build under the terms agreed to. Edmonton threw in more money, we (so far) held firm and said we would look at other options.
Also, based on the Calgary negotiations, it was a $10mm rent payment that the team said they couldn't possibly afford that should be compared to their $80mm in salaries a year.
The Following User Says Thank You to pokerNhockey For This Useful Post:
The answers you seek are provided in the past couple of pages by a number of people. You have been led to water, it is up to you to decide if you want to drink.
Not really. I'm still seeking clarification from you where the inaccurate data is within the EY report, as you've implied it's not credible or its dismissible. Would you be able to highlight the specific data that doesn't sit well with you?
On a related note, the L.A. Live district (which started with, lo and behold, an arena as its first development) has become a success for that city:
Its design has been scorned, but L.A. Live has been crucial to downtown’s resurgence
I actually am pretty proud of Calgary for this. We offered to pony up money but pushed back when they tried to strong arm us into paying more. Katz did the same thing in Edmonton that the Flames did when they decided they didn't want to build under the terms agreed to. Edmonton threw in more money, we (so far) held firm and said we would look at other options.
Also, based on the Calgary negotiations, it was a $10mm rent payment that the team said they couldn't possibly afford that should be compared to their $80mm in salaries a year.
How proud will you be when The Flames pack up and leave town? That was the best deal for both sides. period.. next deal will absolutely be worse for both sides.
The plan for the River District is really something special. I don’t particularly care for a new arena, but there is no denying that they’ve done a great job planning around it. Hard to imagine it coming off quite the same without it.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I actually am pretty proud of Calgary for this. We offered to pony up money but pushed back when they tried to strong arm us into paying more. Katz did the same thing in Edmonton that the Flames did when they decided they didn't want to build under the terms agreed to. Edmonton threw in more money, we (so far) held firm and said we would look at other options.
Also, based on the Calgary negotiations, it was a $10mm rent payment that the team said they couldn't possibly afford that should be compared to their $80mm in salaries a year.
The Flames have been unsuccessful in attempting to back puppet mayors, and that's good for the citizens. I wish more cities would push back sports owners in thee scenarios.
It's fuggin' embarrassing for a city of our size and wealth. The fact that McMahon is still used as a main sporting venue, while cities like Regina and Winnipeg have recently built new facilities, is just the salt in the wound as well.
Regina spent all that money on a ridiculously nice stadium and nobody even wants to go. They had a century of Mosaic/Taylor Field sell outs and now they can't fill the brand new stadium.
I always suspected it would go that way. It's too comfortable. They removed the angst. People from Regina aren't used to having anything nice so they don't feel at home there. It turned them from lively, rowdy soulful fans to quiet dull Bay Streeters sitting on their hands. Zero atmosphere now. The comfortable spacious seats with cup holders and good knee space gets you to sit back, relax, and scroll Facebook.
How proud will you be when The Flames pack up and leave town? That was the best deal for both sides. period.. next deal will absolutely be worse for both sides.
The deal itself was alright in it's last form (I mean, I'd prefer less from citizens, but I get it, and it was better than what Edmonton and many other municipalities bent over and paid) and we were ready for it to be built. It was clearly the Flames that wanted out of it due to supply costs at the time, and they got out of it.
