CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Roughneck]

I figure Plan B will have the city chip in money/breaks to get the arena built at the Railtown location (~4th St SE and 10th ave) to mostly support Stampede development, build off of what is going on with the East Village but mostly to save WV development for a different time to avoid committing so much to remediation and infrastructure when large scale infrastructure money is so focused on the Green Line. That location is so much better than the WV for people moving and helping transform the blight that is everything the Stampede has control over (the CMLC has an uphill battle getting those dinosaurs to do anything good). WV can be fixed better down the line, that Victoria Park area has been doomed ever since the CS got their mitts on a lot of the area.

Then what Bunk says with the McMahon area can work as well because there is a lot of wasted development potential up around the University in that space so that is where a different funding model could work to support that. Not having a stadium/firldhouse would be good because almost without exception such multi-purpose indoor facilities suck but if McMahon renovations/reconstruction can be factored into the project costs of a fieldhouse things become more palatable.

Some simple rules of how the structures of the deals would work out: CSE owns both the arena and the stadium; cover any ticket tax shortages and any surplus goes to support minor hockey; if the word 'viability' is mentioned by anybody affiliated with CSE over the life of the arena it is a $1M fine

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I believe a new arena is entirely within reach and could even get some public monies. Just likely not under the current proposal because I believe it fundamentally does not make sense (for reasons I've stated several times). I also believe KK's hinting at a "Plan B" is exactly what will happen, and I think that Plan B will end up looking something a lot like what I suggested at the onset of this thread, including renovated McMahon and originally planned Foothills Athletic Park Fieldhouse. I'd be almost willing to bet money on it. That's not based on any inside knowledge (don't have that anymore), it's just based on what I'm really sure makes sense for the Flames, and the City, and Calgary.

With the amount of money it would take to either renovate McMahon or simply just build a new stadium just south of it, I think public funds would only be provided for that. It would have to be a significant amount since realistically it doesn't make sense for CSE to put in a large majority of the funds into that.

With the arena at least they can make it a constant revenue stream throughout the whole year, so they should be able to afford covering that on it's own. And that's essentially what they said they would do already with the arena aspect of NEXT.

[jayswin]

I've done a 180 on what I want. Originally I was totally on board with the concept, thinking we'd get something really cool on the football stadium side of things by combining it with an arena project, but after seeing the underwhelming renderings I really think even if this goes through it'll be a watered down everything sold as amazing because it's one thing.

I know on Calgarypuck the Stamps stadium aspect is throw away which is pretty clear by the majority of comments, but as a Stamps fan a few things have soured me on that aspect, it's like we're being offered the worst of both worlds for a field house and stadium.

Cons

-running track around the field (always a huge annoyance at old stadiums, takes away a lot of the intimacy)

-Citizens using the facility have to go downtown and pay for parking, how brutal is that if you have kids that will get dedicated use out of it?

-It won't be available to the public anytime the Stamps are playing, practicing or training. They're selling it as only 8 - 12 dates a year, but realistically they'll be practicing daily during the CFL season, which will limit what can be used by the public most days.

-It doesn't seem like it would be a very good stadium style concert venue, as the capacity isn't much more than a hockey arena and the whole seating area looks kind of awkward. I don't think a caverness field house with extra fields and badminton courts all over and forced in roll away seating will be a very inspiring music venue.

-The capacity; I don't buy King's quick dismissal of the small 25k capacity, pointing to Hamilton's 23k as the new normal in CFL. I believe this whole project has been based on selling "something for everyone" to get as much funding as possible and the field house/stadium combination caused them to have to go with a smaller capacity, awkward football aspect to this project.

The Stamps attendance has dropped but they still don't dip below 26k and often have around 30k.

Which brings me to my point, I'm now fully on board with parting this project out. Let the city take care of a new field house with their own $200mil, and just build a really nice new hockey arena by itself. Then when the Flames (who now own the Stamps) realize that renovating McMahon will be as much as a new stadium with a lackluster result as would be difficult to make it look modern no matter how much you put in, they'll hopefully look to Winnipeg and pay around $200mil for something similar.

Investor's Group Field is fantastic and would immediately put Calgary back in the Stadium tour game, so we don't have to drive up to Edmonton every Stadium show. IGF looks great for everything, be it football, soccer or concerts. I want that.

When you consider the new normal for CFL attendance with the fact that Calgary's too big a city for a bare bones Hamilton style stadium I think around 33k would be perfect.

[T@T]

Probably just my opinion but while Investor's Group Field is great for Winnipeg it seems small for Calgary.

-Calgary regularly sells out the crapola called McMahon which seats over 46,000 but we should be happy with a little house that seats 33,000?

-McMahon was built in 1960 and had somewhere around 23,000 seats back then, population was around 260,000 but the stadium was sold out for many events other than Stamps games.

-Calgary now has 1.2 million people, to go backwards would be crazy, stupid Canadian football aside build a big ass stadium to attract big ass acts and show the country we are a big ass city.

-I will never support a stadium smaller than McMahon...ever!

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by T@T

Probably just my opinion but while Investor's Group Field is great for Winnipeg it seems small for Calgary.

-Calgary regularly sells out the crapola called McMahon which seats over 46,000 but we should be happy with a little house that seats 33,000?

-McMahon was built in 1960 and had somewhere around 23,000 seats back then, population was around 260,000 but the stadium was sold out for many events other than Stamps games.

-Calgary now has 1.2 million people, to go backwards would be crazy, stupid Canadian football aside build a big ass stadium to attract big ass acts and show the country we are a big ass city.

-I will never support a stadium smaller than McMahon...ever!

46,000 is it's expandable capacity for special events like the Grey Cup or Heritage Classic. It's permanent capacity is 35,650.

I think with the amount of empty seats in the top corners during the summer, a more reasonable capacity would be 30-33K, with more luxury suites.

[flamesfan1297]

Powderjunkie- which team is ranked 30th in value?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Joborule

46,000 is it's expandable capacity for special events like the Grey Cup or Heritage Classic. It's permanent capacity is 35,650.

I think with the amount of empty seats in the top corners during the summer, a more reasonable capacity would be 30-33K, with more luxury suites.

Your missing the point bud, we should have a stadium worthy of a a large city, it should be capable to host large events. I, as a city tax payer really hate to play second fiddle to crapholes like Edmonton and Vancouver because we don't have the facilitys.

I disagree with CalgaryNEXT because it's a "please build me" project that bleeds failure because it's not a good location for the city at all.

But in the end we do need two new stadiums to succeed as a real Canadian large city.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by T@T

Your missing the point bud, we should have a stadium worthy of a a large city, it should be capable to host large events. I, as a city tax payer really hate to play second fiddle to crapholes like Edmonton and Vancouver because we don't have the facilitys.

I disagree with CalgaryNEXT because it's a "please build me" project that bleeds failure because it's not a good location for the city at all.

But in the end we do need two new stadiums to succeed as a real Canadian large city.

I agree that the stadium should be state-of-the-art, but I don't believe that the permanent capacity should be well over what the primary tenant would be capable of reaching, otherwise the stadium would never be close to sold out and owners wasted money on building extra seats, which would be nosebleeds that are costly to build.

There demand is around the 30K mark so that's what they should build for. For any event that comes around that would induce higher capacity, temporary seats could be installed to boost the capacity about 10K or so if needed. For touring concerts, with field/stage level seating, that would get you close to the -40K mark. And added temp seats could draw in close to 45K spectators then. (One side of the stadium wouldn't have spectators since they wouldn't be able to see the stage)

I'm not sure what the average turnout for concerts at BC Place and Commonwealth Stadium is, but Taylor Swift drew in 45K, and One Direction did 50K, respectively. BC Place capacity is 54K while Commonwealth is 60K, and they never sell out the stadium aside from major events. Meanwhile, BMO Field in Toronto - the city with the greatest density by far, just got their football team to move there, and it was just expanded to 30,991. And this is going to be a venue that's gonna host the grey cup, an outdoor hockey game, and a fair share of concerts one could imagine.

So there isn't a need for Calgary to build a +50K venue when it may need that much only once every few years. With ~31K seats It should do just fine for the +10 football games, the +18 MLS games wants to draw in, and be capable of hosting a 45K summer concert. For its intended purposes, it would still be capable of looking like a high standard stadium.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

Powderjunkie- which team is ranked 30th in value?

Valuation is a bad measure because it is not applied consistently. There are many things that go into determining the value of a franchise, one of which is ownership of the facility where they play. Another is the ability to generate revenues through broadcast and advertising rights. Both hurt the value of most hockey teams as they are secondary tenants and don't traditionally have large local broadcast contracts. But both of these points are not important to the discussion at hand. The issue here is return on investment and if the Flames ownership group decided to get out of the business of sports team ownership itself. What can the ownership group hope to recoup from the sale of the various products in the CSE family, and how does that compare to the initial investment versus earning potential.

I want to touch on this for a moment because I don't think people have been looking at the big picture. CSE has been working on this project and has had this vision for a long time. They have been acquiring various products that will become tenants in this new facility they hope to build. They have mentioned future aspirations of adding a soccer team to the mix. This will give them multiple tenants to sustain each part of the design. Add in the field house use and they will be maximizing the use of each component of the facility. This is part of their overall vision and where they hope to take CSE. If they can't achieve that goal do they continue down this path at all? Only the owners will be able to make that call.

Full disclosure here. I hate to bust the little bubble that powederjunkie lives in, but I actually voted against this proposal. I think they can do better. I like the concept, but I think there are areas for major improvement. But I will say, I don't need snazzy renderings or styro foam models to know what they have is a good idea. I can see where they are, and where they are headed with this. I think this needs a lot more detail, but detail that will come as they work through the process with the City. While I am oppose the design, I can understand the concept. I'm not going to toss out the baby with the bathwater until I hear what the City proposes, once they come to the table.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by T@T

Your missing the point bud, we should have a stadium worthy of a a large city, it should be capable to host large events. I, as a city tax payer really hate to play second fiddle to crapholes like Edmonton and Vancouver because we don't have the facilitys.

I disagree with CalgaryNEXT because it's a "please build me" project that bleeds failure because it's not a good location for the city at all.

But in the end we do need two new stadiums to succeed as a real Canadian large city.

Complete insanity

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by T@T

Probably just my opinion but while Investor's Group Field is great for Winnipeg it seems small for Calgary.

-Calgary regularly sells out the crapola called McMahon which seats over 46,000 but we should be happy with a little house that seats 33,000?

-McMahon was built in 1960 and had somewhere around 23,000 seats back then, population was around 260,000 but the stadium was sold out for many events other than Stamps games.

-Calgary now has 1.2 million people, to go backwards would be crazy, stupid Canadian football aside build a big ass stadium to attract big ass acts and show the country we are a big ass city.

-I will never support a stadium smaller than McMahon...ever!

I just spoke out against Ken King for suggesting that a multipurpose 25k field house is ridiculous for a city like ours, but you're going too far the other way.

- The Stamps do not regularly sell out McMahon, their attendance is anywhere from 26-30k regularly, with a couple outliers breaking 30k (Riders, Labour Day Classic), and they sell out one to two times per season. In fact I believe they didn't sell out once this year.

- The capacity at McMahon is 36650, so only 3k more than Winnipeg. You're thinking of the temporary seating they bring in for major events.....which they bring in for Winnipeg as well (see: Grey Cup).

- The cavernous 60k, small seat stadium days are over, the US moved away from this years ago. BC Place was born from these days, but the renovation has brought it closer 45k than 60. Even Rogers Centre in Toronto is now 49k after being 60k back in the day.

These two stadiums are also not expandable. So while Winnipeg's stadium can expand to about 44k, Toronto and Vancouver cannot do this, so their max capacity is only a few k higher than Winnipeg.

Your suggestion throws all modern day sports stadium trends and economics out the window.

[jayswin]

One other thing that bothered me about King's flippant response to the low capacity is that it's been well documented that fans are staying away by the thousands due to how remarkably awful the game experience is at McMahon.

So to suggest a capacity of 1k less than the Stamps lowest attendance in decades is acceptable when most game are 3 - 4k higher than that AND presumably a new stadium would likely increase attendance significantly is asinine, imo, and clearly shows that the stadium/field house combo is a thrown together mess in an attempt to sell the city/public on funding necessity.

[hockey.modern]

Not sure if it's been posted yet, but here are some pictures of the model of "CalgaryNEXT" from the updated video.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by jayswin

One other thing that bothered me about King's flippant response to the low capacity is that it's been well documented that fans are staying away by the thousands due to how remarkably awful the game experience is at McMahon.

So to suggest a capacity of 1k less than the Stamps lowest attendance in decades is acceptable when most game are 3 - 4k higher than that AND presumably a new stadium would likely increase attendance significantly is asinine, imo, and clearly shows that the stadium/field house combo is a thrown together mess in an attempt to sell the city/public on funding necessity.

I think this one is very debatable. Look at BC Place for instance, they had that nice, expensive reno and most of the time when you see an afternoon, indoor game, there are tons of seats in the lower bowl available. Playing inside almost killed Montreal, and has killed Toronto who now is leaving their cavern to get outside. An indoor stadium for an outdoor sport I think is going to hurt attendance long term. If it's the middle of July and nice, how many people are going to spend good money to sit in air conditioned room with maybe a hint of sun? I know I'd be on the golf course and would never consider going inside. If people are going to stay inside, might as well stay home, which is another problem for a new football stadium: football is primarily a TV sport where almost all of the new revenue for the league is being driven.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by jayswin

One other thing that bothered me about King's flippant response to the low capacity is that it's been well documented that fans are staying away by the thousands due to how remarkably awful the game experience is at McMahon.

So to suggest a capacity of 1k less than the Stamps lowest attendance in decades is acceptable when most game are 3 - 4k higher than that AND presumably a new stadium would likely increase attendance significantly is asinine, imo, and clearly shows that the stadium/field house combo is a thrown together mess in an attempt to sell the city/public on funding necessity.

I don't see any issue with a smaller stadium. It would likely be expandable and it would keep interest high. Less seats with more boxes is all the rage and I'm sure the stadium would have plenty of boxes.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think this one is very debatable. Look at BC Place for instance, they had that nice, expensive reno and most of the time when you see an afternoon, indoor game, there are tons of seats in the lower bowl available. Playing inside almost killed Montreal, and has killed Toronto who now is leaving their cavern to get outside. An indoor stadium for an outdoor sport I think is going to hurt attendance long term. If it's the middle of July and nice, how many people are going to spend good money to sit in air conditioned room with maybe a hint of sun? I know I'd be on the golf course and would never consider going inside. If people are going to stay inside, might as well stay home, which is another problem for a new football stadium: football is primarily a TV sport where almost all of the new revenue for the league is being driven.

Comparing the situations in Calgary, BC, TO and Montreal isn't accurate. BCs attendance hasn't changed much. Skydome and Olympic stadium weren't desirable places to watch games.

A fancy new stadium with glass roof etc may be popular.

[skrish]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I just spoke out against Ken King for suggesting that a multipurpose 25k field house is ridiculous for a city like ours, but you're going too far the other way.

- The Stamps do not regularly sell out McMahon, their attendance is anywhere from 26-30k regularly, with a couple outliers breaking 30k (Riders, Labour Day Classic), and they sell out one to two times per season. In fact I believe they didn't sell out once this year.

- The capacity at McMahon is 36650, so only 3k more than Winnipeg. You're thinking of the temporary seating they bring in for major events.....which they bring in for Winnipeg as well (see: Grey Cup).

- The cavernous 60k, small seat stadium days are over, the US moved away from this years ago. BC Place was born from these days, but the renovation has brought it closer 45k than 60. Even Rogers Centre in Toronto is now 49k after being 60k back in the day.

These two stadiums are also not expandable. So while Winnipeg's stadium can expand to about 44k, Toronto and Vancouver cannot do this, so their max capacity is only a few k higher than Winnipeg.

Your suggestion throws all modern day sports stadium trends and economics out the window.

Not really adding to the conversation, but BC Place has a stadium capacity of 54.5k.

[RM14]

Meanwhile in Saskatchewan...

Spoiler!

..and Edmonton

Spoiler!

[nik-]

good for them

[RM14]

Originally Posted by nik-

good for them

Agreed

[manwiches]

Originally Posted by RM14

Meanwhile in Saskatchewan...

Spoiler!

..and Edmonton

Spoiler!

The one Regina is going up like a weed. I play hockey at the Cooperators Center right beside it weekly, and every time it looks closer to being done. This is going to be one epic stadium, save for the lack of roof.