[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Some people are such homers. This idea frickin sucks. Give the flames a new stadium and deal with the rest of the issues on their own. This complex won't turn Calgary into New York or make us any more world class. What a joke, Ken king has that feasted complex and thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. Spouting these stupid reasons for why we need to do this the way he is proposing.

Day ruined

You sound like the kind of guy who can ruin his own day just waking up.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I don't like the ticket tax comments: it's probably going to be coming from the city but they are calling it a ticket tax so average joe doesn't think its 450 million from the city. just my opinion.

Same as the Edmonton model really.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...ing-model.aspx

project is twice the size but the percentages are pretty close.

[codynw]

Can someone explain to me what the toxic wasteland talk is all about? What's in the area that they need to clean up, and why is it there?

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Who is putting up the money? The city? In Edmonton the city is putting it up. That's what I was asking. The money has to come from someone up front to be RECOUPED by a ticket tax.

I know what a ticket tax is thank you very much.

The money is borrowed. The tax pays the interest and principal on the loan. So the bank is "putting up the money". No one is touching the preciously little tax dollars that I assume you are putting into the system.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Who is putting up the money? The city? In Edmonton the city is putting it up. That's what I was asking. The money has to come from someone up front to be RECOUPED by a ticket tax.

I know what a ticket tax is thank you very much.

You were saying that the money wouldn't be recouped, and that calling it a ticket tax was basically a ruse. That made you look like you don't know what a ticket tax is.

So who is putting up the money? It'll be borrowed from commercial lenders and amortized with the proceeds of the ticket tax.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The ownership thing is interesting but needs more details. Hillsborough County owns the Tampa Bay Buccaneers football stadium, but the Bucs operate it and keep all the revenues associated (gate, concessions, parking etc...), and the county pays for stadium maintenance and upgrades. So if this is the same, where the city owns and the Flames operate, it's nowhere near as good a deal as it appears.

This.

I keep hearing that the city owns the stadium (yay! or yay?). Does that mean they're responsible for the maintenance? (boo) The revenue, is there a sharing to this, does the city get the revenue? 'cause it doesn't sound like it if KK is talking about a 'ticket tax', that sounds like they get the revenue on the ticket tax which probably means they get all the revenue, and that's a way to 'get back' their money they put in.

Very curious on that arrangement.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

The arena concept is leaving confused:

Does the score clock read 12:00?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Wouldn't a team like that have lease payments and then the city would have expenses like repairs and interest on loans, but overall still make money?

I would imagine if a company operates there, its' like renting out commercial space, no?

Yes, there would be a lease in place. In this case the Bucs amazingly got a property tax-free lease which is mind boggling but I suppose there was the threat they could move elsewhere. In this case the Flames threatening to move would be kind of an empty threat, as leaving one of the top markets in hockey seems like a pretty poor idea.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by codynw

Can someone explain to me what the toxic wasteland talk is all about? What's in the area that they need to clean up, and why is it there?

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/02/28...o-west-village

The biggest hurdle facing future development of West Village will be the massive environmental cleanup needed before any real work can begin.

Found next to the Bow River at the curve where Bow Tr. S.W. cuts between the two auto dealership lots next to the Greyhound Station is the former Creosote Canada site.

In operation from 1924 until the mid 1960s, the 44-acre wood preserving operation featured storage tanks, processing areas, drying and storage areas for creosote-soaked wood.

Information found on the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Ministry’s website describes creosote as “a compound of about 200 organic chemicals that was used to preserve wood products such as railway ties and power poles.”

Environmental standards and testing were much less rigorous at the time of the plant’s operation and as time passed, chemicals leached into the ground and the contamination spread.

Testing done by ESRD in the 1980s showed creosote had gone into and under the Bow River, being found as far north as Broadview Rd. N.W. on the north side of Memorial Dr., and as far east as 18 St. N.W.

A containment wall was built in the mid 1990s and dozens of monitoring holes were dug. Government officials also regularly test the surface water of the Bow River.

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Some people are such homers. This idea frickin sucks. Give the flames a new stadium and deal with the rest of the issues on their own. This complex won't turn Calgary into New York or make us any more world class. What a joke, Ken king has that feasted complex and thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. Spouting these stupid reasons for why we need to do this the way he is proposing.

Day ruined

All right. We get it. You don't like it.

As for day ruined, you're right. I was enjoying this thread until you started constantly posting in it.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Benched

-was expecting to hear more on the infrastructure/road/transportation side of things (KK says LRT will be the primary method of transport. well, not sure how that's going to work, we currently have LRT + massive car parking and both are still freaking nuts after a game)
-clean up and who's paying the bill etc.
-infrastructure/roads who's paying the bill etc.

I wonder if many of these concerns are alleviated because the majority of fans won't (or shouldn't) need to walk on the streets to get to the LRT (main mode of transportation) and thus reduces cars waiting on pedestrians. I think 9th ave might have some pedestrians, but Bow Trail and 14th Street look like it would have minimal, no? No lights or pedestrian areas and direct drive for a bit.

However, the ramp for Crowchild N/S could really use some widening/fixing or something there. A separate ramp for Memorial West/East rather than cutting across Crowchild could help immensely too. But yeah, not discussed so far.

As a concept though, this is pretty cool.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by codynw

Can someone explain to me what the toxic wasteland talk is all about? What's in the area that they need to clean up, and why is it there?

it's creosote, an additive for railway ties and power poles. It used to be used there and it leached into the soil. One expert said there is about 2 swimming pools worth of it in the soil.

The only way to clean it is to remove it entirely and then scrub the soil.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Wouldn't a team like that have lease payments and then the city would have expenses like repairs and interest on loans, but overall still make money?

I would imagine if a company operates there, its' like renting out commercial space, no?

In a perfect world, yes. But the vast majority of city/municipal owned arenas are revenue neutral - i.e. they make no money on rent. The title is in their name. 100% of profits go to the FLames. Usually, the maintenance is covered by the flames as well.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

The money is borrowed. The tax pays the interest and principal on the loan. So the bank is "putting up the money". No one is touching the preciously little tax dollars that I assume you are putting into the system.

You don't know that. KK did not have that answer. In the Edmonton deal the city put up the money.

It's just a way for them to spin it. But the way he sounded while he answered the question it appears they will be asking the city to finance it in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You were saying that the money wouldn't be recouped, and that calling it a ticket tax was basically a ruse. That made you look like you don't know what a ticket tax is.

So who is putting up the money? It'll be borrowed from commercial lenders and amortized with the proceeds of the ticket tax.

Again by how KK sounded it sounds like they will ask the City and explore commercial options in the event the city says no.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Cappy

The negativity has to do with the very same things you are saying:

1) studies prove this statement is false.
2) Studies prove this statement is false. There is no beenfit in the city owninig the land, CRL's are public financing, and there is already a plan in place to gentrify this area in a similar vein of East village.
3) the olympic argument is a joke and studies reveal they are net money detractors (we will not get into the olympic argument right now)
4) we have no proof of the stuff KK is saying or what the city had planned for this area.

The negativity stems from everyone spouting the same arguments that other cities have done for decades, despite the fact that none of these arguments hold water!!!

Wrong.
1)Calgary does consider itself a world class city. Time to act like it.
2) That land generates next to no revenue from that land. Moderinizing it adds a potentially huge new tax base.
3) Never said anything about Olympics...just the people using them. Look at the usage of the existing 1988 facilities!
4) The province indemnifies the city unless they put a shovel in the ground...this is why NOTHING has happened there until now.

[HotHotHeat]

Francis finally asks the revenue split question...

[Bingo]

when you look at the comments in this discussion they're largely positive (more positive than I was expecting to be honest).

The poll really proves that out.

I was expecting less public money (percentage) than Edmonton (almost exact if the city ends up eating the 32M unfunded portion), and this pretty much the exact same thing (x2 for two buildings, which is where I think they hit a snag).

Will be interesting to see where this road winds.

[calumniate]

I think this is the best location. What a gift that this particular area has not undergone development yet. In many cities a location such as this would be virtually impossible

[RougeUnderoos]

Does anyone know what "remediation" entails? Like is it as simple as the creosote is just in the dirt? Will they just truck it all out of there and dispose of it somehow?

Woolley just mentioned that the creosote caused problems in the last flood. Shouldn't this stuff come out of there anyway?

[Benched]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Any new stadiums will always seat less, not more. More leg room, more direct to seat sales/service. Providing greater amenities and services to less patrons to maximize revenue.

fair enough