[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Keep naming examples of bands, all you want. It doesn't justify the city spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars on the venue.

Read my whole post

I said who pays for it is up for debate

The FACT Calgary is losing arts and entertainment events and is not

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

The fact of the matter is, the City of Calgary needs an Arena whether they have an NHL team or not. The Flames could leave town, the NHL could dissolve, and that wouldn't change the fact that Calgary needs a new arena. One of these times here something is going to happen at that rink that can't be fixed by some patch job. What are we going to do than? There's 1.3M in this City, a venue is needed. I'm not saying the City/Province should pick up the tab, but they are damn lucky to have a tenant like the Flames and ability to share costs when a new venue is constructed.

I tell you one thing, the fact that 11 cm of snow over a few days span made the Saddledome Roof unacceptable for a pretty light stage setup, kind of freaks me out. How much longer does this building have left if that's the case?

LOL no kidding...and these stage setups aren't getting any smaller

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by dino7c

LOL no kidding...and these stage setups aren't getting any smaller

Eric Church's stage setup was puny compared to most.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by dino7c

No he gave a scaled back show due to the roof and the fact it snowed (in Calgary what are the chances lol)

IT IS A FACT that acts are skipping Calgary due to the roof of the dome

In the past 3 years

Maroon 5, Paul McCartney, Madonna, Metallica, AC/DC, Roger Waters, Justin Timberlake, Jonas Brothers, Britney Spears, Pink, Drake...I'm sure there are more

have all skipped the dome citing issues with their equipment and the roof

again who pays for it is up for debate, Calgary losing events due to the dome is not up for debate

how many examples do you need...sheeeeeeeit

To the first bolded, since you claim they've cited the issues with the equipment and the roof as to why they skipped Calgary.....alright let me stop right there. Bands do not issue press releases indicating why they skip cities. So you are quite literally making this up. You can say "I'm speculating here", but you have no facts whatsoever to back this assertion up. So it's not a fact no matter how much you state it.

Which leads to the second bolded...no one says Calgary isn't losing out on events, but the Dome is a factor, not the totality of the reason. It's not like bands were all lined up, badly wanted to come and then said "#### it, Saddledome roof guys". There are a multitude of factors. One of the biggest being, as it relates to all the bands you mentioned, it's a numbers game. Almost all of those acts will play Edmonton OR Calgary, but not both. And a new arena is not changing that equation. Might make Calgary more competitive with Edmonton, but as I said if the rumours are true and Edmonton promoters are a lot easier to work with than their Calgary counterparts, that isn't going to change with a new building.

If Montreal gets skipped by big bands (and it does), Calgary is always going to be skipped by big bands, regardless of the facilities. Numbers game.

[troutman]

Our "skipping Calgary" stories are largely anecdotal. I'd like to see a comprehensive survey comparing large tours skipping Calgary for Edmonton, and vice versa. Then we can define how big the "problem" is, and maybe do something about it.

I didn't think there was a big net difference before, but I think that has changed with the new arena in Edmonton.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

The fact of the matter is, the City of Calgary needs an Arena whether they have an NHL team or not. The Flames could leave town, the NHL could dissolve, and that wouldn't change the fact that Calgary needs a new arena.

Even if we assume that's true (and I'm not convinced that it is) if you take the Flames/NHL out of the equation that dramatically changes the needs, requirements, and by extension costs of building a facility.

Without an NHL team the city wouldn't need anything more then the MTS Centre (which, let us not forget, actually does have an NHL team as a tenent).

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

I also remember Ken King saying he had all these amazing renderings in his office. Apparently he decided to keep them there when he showed that first awful PowerPoint presentation. Way to make a great first impression there Ken.

The newer renderings are actually quite a bit nicer, especially the river front aspects.

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

[stone hands]

If viewing concerts is that important to you, there's a city up the road you can move to that has a brand new concert venue

Here in this city the people have mostly spoken out against it

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by RM14

The newer renderings are actually quite a bit nicer, especially the river front aspects.

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Ken King hates access and egress.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Here in this city the people have mostly spoken out against it

Here in this city, most of the people have never been asked about it and have never said anything. There is considerable opposition to CalgaryNEXT, and a general strain of opposition to the idea of public funding for any new arena or stadium. But that is not the same as saying that no new facilities are needed or that none should be built. Try not to conflate the questions.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Read my whole post

I said who pays for it is up for debate

The FACT Calgary is losing arts and entertainment events and is not

I read your post. I don't disagree with your assessment that Calgary is losing concert acts.

I am questioning whether us as taxpayers are willing to dish out hundreds of millions for a few more concerts.

I for one am not.

The debate isn't really who should pay, its how much should the city pay. There is obviously some amount that the city could supply (land or infrastructure) that makes this an acceptable venture - 200 million + land and infrastructure is not worth it.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by RM14

The newer renderings are actually quite a bit nicer, especially the river front aspects.

Spoiler!

Why aren't these people wearing Flames jerseys!?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by troutman

Our "skipping Calgary" stories are largely anecdotal. I'd like to see a comprehensive survey comparing large tours skipping Calgary for Edmonton, and vice versa. Then we can define how big the "problem" is, and maybe do something about it.

I didn't think there was a big net difference before, but I think that has changed with the new arena in Edmonton.

Its not because of the new arena in Edmonton...bands were skipping the dome because of the roof and going to rexall

Its happened, its happened because of the ####ing roof...end of story

article from 2014...before Edmonton's new arena

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...omes-drawbacks

“There was a serious concern,” said Ian Low, central Canada regional president for Live Nation, the promotions giant.

“And I can tell you we don’t often go down that road on many arenas to analyze snow weight and (equipment) weight load on roofs.”

The band played on, that time. But while its Western Canada swing next March will include Edmonton, Vancouver and Saskatoon, Calgary won’t be listed on the back of the 2015 tour T-shirt.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Its not because of the new arena in Edmonton...bands were skipping the dome because of the roof and going to rexall

Its happened, its happened because of the ####ing roof...end of story

article from 2014...before Edmonton's new arena

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...omes-drawbacks

“There was a serious concern,” said Ian Low, central Canada regional president for Live Nation, the promotions giant.

“And I can tell you we don’t often go down that road on many arenas to analyze snow weight and (equipment) weight load on roofs.”

The band played on, that time. But while its Western Canada swing next March will include Edmonton, Vancouver and Saskatoon, Calgary won’t be listed on the back of the 2015 tour T-shirt.

He says we miss out on 3 to 5 major concerts a year. That is not the end of the world.

He is probably exaggerating as well considering he is in the business of concert promoting and a new venue helps his bottom line.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I read your post. I don't disagree with your assessment that Calgary is losing concert acts.

I am questioning whether us as taxpayers are willing to dish out hundreds of millions for a few more concerts.

I for one am not.

The debate isn't really who should pay, its how much should the city pay. There is obviously some amount that the city could supply (land or infrastructure) that makes this an acceptable venture - 200 million + land and infrastructure is not worth it.

I for one can't believe there were two pages arguing about concert acts. Of course they're losing out on concerts, that honestly can't be debated nor should it.

One individual concert may choose Edmonton for reasons that have nothing to do with the saddledome, but that doesn't make it every case.

We have a decade's worth of Edmonton is no good topics to justify you don't go to Edmonton unless you have to

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Cappy

He says we miss out on 3 to 5 major concerts a year. That is not the end of the world.

He is probably exaggerating as well considering he is in the business of concert promoting and a new venue helps his bottom line.

I missed where I said it was the end of the world...I said the Calgary economy is losing money and it is

Maybe the owners should pay for everything and make bank off a ticket tax for years to come...I personally don't have an issue with some tax payers money going to such a facility. Sorry to anyone who doesn't agree

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I missed where I said it was the end of the world...I said the Calgary economy is losing money and it is

Maybe the owners should pay for everything and make bank off a ticket tax for years to come...I personally don't have an issue with some tax payers money going to such a facility. Sorry to anyone who doesn't agree

In a roundabout way, that is most people's position here.

Owners pay for the facility through their funds and a ticket tax.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by dino7c

It WILL change with a new building...I am not saying there will never be another act to skip Calgary. (scheduling ect.)

I know for a FACT that acts are skipping the dome because of the restrictions of the roof. With a new building Calgary will have more "big draw" events that will bring money into the economy...its a fact

did you miss the latest country star (name escapes me) that had to do an acoustic set last week because they were worried his sound system would pull down the roof? lol


We can debate who pays for the thing, there is no debate that a new building would bring more arts and entertainment to the city

The question up for debate though is how much of that money is spent within the city anyway, how much is spent within the province, and how much is spend within Canada and how much leaves the economy.

If the money is merely being transferred from Calgary to Edmonton, or from the Calgary Flames to other entertainment options within the city then the actual economic losses are minimal. Certainly the province shouldn't kick in any money as it shouldn't care whether Edmonton or Calgary books the band.

I think that any robust economic analysis would show that the city would never recoup the money they invest in higher property taxes. And if they don't do that then it is a subsidy for economic growth. And if it is a subsidy for economic growth than a robust analysis should be undertaken to ensure that an arena is better than other options for the city to subsidize.

There is one study that showed merely giving away the money would be better in terms of economic growth. In my opinion and I am lazy so am not going to bother citing sources today is that the argument for the economic benefits of a stadium in any study that considers the substitution effect shows that stadiums have marginal economic impact.

[jayswin]

lol, troutman calls the Calgary vs Edmonton concert discrepancy anecdotal again. Him and nenshi are the only two people in Calgary.

[East Coast Flame]

Updated list I posted in the concerts thread. The following concerts are skipping Calgary and playing Edmonton in 2017:

February - Garth Brooks (9 shows)
March - The Lumineers
April - John Mayer
June - Future
July - Queen & Adam Lambert, Bruno Mars, Ed Sheeran
August - Lady Gaga, One Direction, Metallica, Guns N Roses
September - Coldplay, Lionel Richie & Mariah Carey
October - Roger Waters, Depeche Mode

The only concerts I can find that are playing The Dome and not Edmonton are the 3 Stampede concerts: Alabama, Johnny Reid and Usher/The Roots.