CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Cappy]

surprised so many have done a 180 based on a god damn diagram showing what we already knew

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I'm not sure why those seating diagrams all of the sudden gets some people more warm to the project. It gives a little bit more of an outlook on the configuration, but that's it. We could have assumed how it would look already. It's not detailed renderings of how it would actually look like on the field/rink, and in the concourse. I thought the biggest issue was with the location and feasibility? (Public use with event use at same time and such) That hasn't changed with those diagrams.

Are you sure about that? The new images show a professional looking stadium with two tiers on either side, endzone seats on one side.

Maybe some are forgetting the original renderings we were treated to that made it look like a high school gym stadium with one little tier on at least one side?


I mean, a recent poster said it best, you have one chance to get the public on your side and showing this rendering not only didn't get new people on board it actually lost them support of people that would have supported almost anything. How do you seriously propose a two tier professional looking football stadium but initially release a rendering of about 12 rows of seats on one side with no room for us to even imagine a second tier???? That's bushleague, imo.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why is it disrespectful? Because they also donate to charitable causes? Someone who donates to charitable causes is beyond reproach when there is pretty significant exhibition on why someone might believe they are trying to sneak something by the city ("the city wants this", "the city has already budgeted for a field house", "the long term viability of the franchise is at stake").

He's right - Charity = good guys status for life.

Exhibit A



http://miami.marlins.mlb.com/mia/com...foundation.jsp

http://miami.marlins.mlb.com/mia/com...rment_fund.jsp

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/stor...-espn-magazine

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...-miami/273644/

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ml...194316181.html

Result - good guy

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I don't understand why you care so much, you don't even live in Calgary.

FLASH WALKEN ISNT EVEN A FAN!!!

get him!

[Tyler]

I seem to recall Burke saying that having a nearby practice rink is one of the key pieces for attracting free agents these days. Speculate the merit of that all you want however, but it looks to be something most teams are including in their new arena plans.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Cappy

He's right - Charity = good guys status for life.

Exhibit A



http://miami.marlins.mlb.com/mia/com...foundation.jsp

http://miami.marlins.mlb.com/mia/com...rment_fund.jsp

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/stor...-espn-magazine

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...-miami/273644/

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ml...194316181.html

Result - good guy

So you're going to compare Calgary ownership to a guy that Florida considers to be the plague?

I think you're making my point more than his.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by Bingo

if that's the way you see it ... sure

Your handle suggests you may lean to over reaction though doesn't it?

I see both sides of the coin. A person/organization giving millions to the community is generous, so why treat the person like they're a jerk? A person with millions to give, asking for billions from the same community for a private project seems greedy, why not treat the person like a jerk?

The truth of the person's character probably falls in between and fluctuates over time. I also do really disagree with CSE asking for such a huge expenditure of public money.

You are absolutely right about the handle though. Ironically, I only use the phrase for small incidents, like the time I came to work and all (3) of my pens were missing from my desk. Our admin. overhead me say, "This is an outrage!" ...and promptly laughed.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

I see both sides of the coin. A person/organization giving millions to the community is generous, so why treat the person like they're a jerk? A person with millions to give, asking for billions from the same community for a private project seems greedy, why not treat the person like a jerk?

The truth of the person's character probably falls in between and fluctuates over time. I also do really disagree with CSE asking for such a huge expenditure of public money.

You are absolutely right about the handle though. Ironically, I only use the phrase for small incidents, like the time I came to work and all (3) of my pens were missing from my desk. Our admin. overhead me say, "This is an outrage!" ...and promptly laughed.

All good ...

Personally I wish they'd aim lower, get a rink plan and just get going on this. I don't however, see someone trying to be a jerk. I think the city needs new facilities, and a CFL team can't pay for it. There's a chance to work together on something if the city wants to do it. If they don't so be it.

As I said I wish they'd just drop it and go smaller.

But none of that says bilk, or sneaky or slimy or greedy or jerk to me.

If there's a desire for both sides to come together and do something then do it. If not don't.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I really wish you would have at least done your homework before writing this ignorant post (see how annoying it is to read that). This statement is incorrect. The balance is funded with a mix of CSEC money, CRL money and ticket tax money.

My issue with the Fieldhouse $200M is that the city gets a relatively subpar facility for the same amount of money. "Subpar" in that they a) don't control it, b) can't use it full time (football, Stamps practices), and c) access, egress and parking is further complicated by arena events. Thanks for the offer, but I'll keep my $200M and go build my own thing.

I did do the research and my post was correct in regards to correcting the poster that was of the belief that CSEC was going to take the city's $200 million for the fieldhouse and build a $200 million CFL stadium with fieldhouse. Surely you can see that no? Not exactly sure what you are getting at here as a large basis of their funding for the arena is also ticket tax money which is considered a CSEC investment through a user fee. The CRL applies in some aspect of the total overall package but it's a movable piece and not fixed with the fieldhouse or arena.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cappy

surprised so many have done a 180 based on a god damn diagram showing what we already knew

Just proves what I stated a few times in this thread already that when it comes down people being easily swooned via presentation. People were upset that the initial renders were underwhelming despite the fact that they are pretty well irrelevant at this stage seeing they wouldn't represent the final design in any meaningful way. Now another render comes out and some people have warmed up to it. Either way it doesn't matter as this all boils down to the economics not the renders.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by jayswin

A How do you seriously propose a two tier professional looking football stadium but initially release a rendering of about 12 rows of seats on one side with no room for us to even imagine a second tier???? That's bushleague, imo.

And for good measure, throw in a no name mascot that looks like he's been on a 10 day coke bender.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

And for good measure, through in a no name mascot that looks like he's been on a 10 day coke bender.

That's Ralph the Stampeders mascot and yes he looks like he's come off an all-weekend bender.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Huh....interesting. Clearly I don't watch much CFL. Didn't know the Stamps had a Mascot.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Just proves what I stated a few times in this thread already that when it comes down people being easily swooned via presentation. People were upset that the initial renders were underwhelming despite the fact that they are pretty well irrelevant at this stage seeing they wouldn't represent the final design in any meaningful way. Now another render comes out and some people have warmed up to it. Either way it doesn't matter as this all boils down to the economics not the renders.

And you were swooned by what? The fantastic financials?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

And you were swooned by what? The fantastic financials?

Swooned by nothing currently. Im of the opinion the city needs new facilities to match the rest of the country's major cities and I like the idea of a centrally located facility. I'm in favor of the project but lots of things need to be settled and first and foremost is the environmental cleanup. If the city doesn't want to clean up the mess seeping into the Bow River then CalgaryNEXT or any development on the West Village is a non-starter.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cappy

surprised so many have done a 180 based on a god damn diagram showing what we already knew

Are you really that surprised? This argument obviously boils down to optics, as it is very complex how the whole process works and most people have no interest in getting into the guts of what this entails. The public wanted the shiny disco ball that was going wow them. That was the expectation, and that exp citation was not met. It didn't take high end renderings to sell those who read and understood the intent of the proposal. But some people needed them I guess. I guess the old adage is right. The car sale is made when the buyer plops his butt behind the wheel and goes for the test drive.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Tyler

I seem to recall Burke saying that having a nearby practice rink is one of the key pieces for attracting free agents these days. Speculate the merit of that all you want however, but it looks to be something most teams are including in their new arena plans.

Dump some money into a nice Max Bell dressing room. Done.

[sun]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Just proves what I stated a few times in this thread already that when it comes down people being easily swooned via presentation. People were upset that the initial renders were underwhelming despite the fact that they are pretty well irrelevant at this stage seeing they wouldn't represent the final design in any meaningful way. Now another render comes out and some people have warmed up to it. Either way it doesn't matter as this all boils down to the economics not the renders.

It's almost as if people are influenced by their emotions and not numbers... Very novel thought. News only to those who have never sold anything ever.

KK's job was to sell this thing. If he wants Calgarians to pay for it, they need to be swooned.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I did do the research and my post was correct in regards to correcting the poster that was of the belief that CSEC was going to take the city's $200 million for the fieldhouse and build a $200 million CFL stadium with fieldhouse. Surely you can see that no? Not exactly sure what you are getting at here as a large basis of their funding for the arena is also ticket tax money which is considered a CSEC investment through a user fee. The CRL applies in some aspect of the total overall package but it's a movable piece and not fixed with the fieldhouse or arena.

http://calgarynext.com/financing-plan.php

The page doesn't indicate that the fieldhouse/stadium would get anymore funding than $200M. The CRL is not related to the stadium itself. So unless I'm not comprehending it correctly, CSC proposes that the facility should cost $200M in total.

Originally Posted by jayswin

Are you sure about that? The new images show a professional looking stadium with two tiers on either side, endzone seats on one side.

Maybe some are forgetting the original renderings we were treated to that made it look like a high school gym stadium with one little tier on at least one side?


I mean, a recent poster said it best, you have one chance to get the public on your side and showing this rendering not only didn't get new people on board it actually lost them support of people that would have supported almost anything. How do you seriously propose a two tier professional looking football stadium but initially release a rendering of about 12 rows of seats on one side with no room for us to even imagine a second tier???? That's bushleague, imo.

The original "renders" were so amateur that I would think it's fair to assume majority didn't think they'll propose that when Ken King/CalgaryNEXT site said it would feature 30K seats. So those renders didn't have any merit since it didn't give an actual illustration of what a real proposal (based on what they said would be featured) would look like. So while we do get something a bit more detailed, I'm a bit surprised it made that much of a impact to some to make them get more in favour of the concept. It still doesn't show much.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The page doesn't indicate that the fieldhouse/stadium would get anymore funding than $200M. The CRL is not related to the stadium itself. So unless I'm not comprehending it correctly, CSC proposes that the facility should cost $200M in total.

No, CSEC is saying that building CalgaryNext will cost $330 million less than building separate facilities, so they're basically playing with the numbers to make it look like the city will get what they've planned to spend $200 million for already (but still unbudgeted) with the added bonus of a new stadium for the Stamps that won't cost any extra.

If you split CalgaryNext into three separate buildings, they say the cost goes from $890 million to $1.2 billion.

They didn't give an estimate for what it would cost to build the fieldhouse/stadium as one stand-alone facility and the arena/event centre as another. Presumably, it would be somewhere between $890 million and $1.2 billion.