CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Cappy]

EDIT: Double post

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Coachella is in a major urban environment. Field Day is a major festival that happens in London. Lollapalooza is in the heart of Chicago. SXSW is in the heart of Austin.

But none of these happen in a stadium...

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Where do you live?



Good for them. In 1950 they were the three biggest football stadiums in the world. I don't know, but I'd guess back in the day, the owners of the football clubs built them to make money from the fans who have been cheering those teams on since the 19th century.

Point being that things are a little different.

Anyway, I don't think that anyone is saying "we don't want a stadium". The sentiment as I read it here in the city we are talking about is "boy it'd be nice to have a new stadium, but with the state of the economy in Alberta, I'm not comfortable seeing my tax dollars go to building facilities for the wealthiest people in the province to run their hobbies out of".

I live in one of those American hell-holes that Canadians just seem to keep away from, and I wish you would, because you nice folks do nothing but clog up our damn streets and highways (the speed limits are in MPH not KPH, and get the #### out of the left hand lane unless you are passing!). Kidding aside, I understand your points. I just don't get some of the arguments. Calgary has some of the worst and unpredictable weather, so having access to a site where stadium and festival shows can be held regardless of weather/climate just makes sense. We're blessed in having great climate and even better facilities, which our Canadian visitors remind us of all the time.

I also understand the economic argument. I see the economic downturn as an opportunity rather than a bad thing. There is all sorts of cheap labor available and access to money comes with a very low cost at the moment. Large projects like this are probably best to undertake in these conditions. Trying to do it when things are booming just drives up costs. I would hope the municipality is considering that angle.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Holy hyperbole train Batman! I know you want this project basically as badly as anyone has ever wanted anything, but don't be absurd.

It's not absurd at all. You can try and downplay all you want but everything I said was true and anyone in Edmonton that's been back and forth between Calgary would know this.

Nobody ever answered the question of proving that the city got screwed because it can't be proven. Edmontonians lives have not been altered negatively in the slightest. People simply like to argue about the dollar figures and ignore that at the end of the day it's just money with little substance or evidence it would have gone to other places that would have made large differences to the lives of the average city dweller.

[nik-]

It may be true, but people feeling good doesn't mean squat economically.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Holy hyperbole train Batman! I know you want this project basically as badly as anyone has ever wanted anything, but don't be absurd.

LOL, Edmontonians more excited now, than the 80's?

PULLEEEEEEEZE

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's not absurd at all. You can try and downplay all you want but everything I said was true and anyone in Edmonton that's been back and forth between Calgary would know this.

Nobody ever answered the question of proving that the city got screwed because it can't be proven. Edmontonians lives have not been altered negatively in the slightest. People simply like to argue about the dollar figures and ignore that at the end of the day it's just money with little substance or evidence it would have gone to other places that would have made large differences to the lives of the average city dweller.

Of course it can't be proven....yet. When they get their next property tax increase, I'm guessing people will be feeling pretty pissed off about that, and will wonder "If we didn't gave that moron Katz that money, maybe we wouldn't get an increase". And the average city dweller comment is deliciously rich, seeing as the average city dweller is now more likely to be priced out of seeing the Oilers, what with the 20% ticket increase and concession increases across the board.

I'm really hoping my dream scenario comes true for the 2017 mayoral race. Nenshi, fully supporting CalgaryNEXT, versus someone else, totally against CalgaryNEXT. Ponch might have to vote Nenshi just to get his arena. Let it happen God.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's not absurd at all. You can try and downplay all you want but everything I said was true and anyone in Edmonton that's been back and forth between Calgary would know this.

Nobody ever answered the question of proving that the city got screwed because it can't be proven. Edmontonians lives have not been altered negatively in the slightest. People simply like to argue about the dollar figures and ignore that at the end of the day it's just money with little substance or evidence it would have gone to other places that would have made large differences to the lives of the average city dweller.

There is no argument that Rogers Place has made a large difference to the average Edmontonian.

You have some friends who are die-hard hockey fans. They are pretty pumped I'm sure. So are the other 50,000 to 100,000 different people who will be walking into that rink over the next year.

Of course, i also have some friends that are absolutely PO'ed at the insane prices of everything there and probably won't go..

Also, there are another 900,000 Edmontonians who won't be making it out to the arena any time soon. They are the average. This arena has impacted them in no way whatsoever.

The City has been impacted for sure. They paid a few hundred million for that. Who knows what that money would have went to, if at all. Perhaps it doesnt get spent; but that would actually affect the "average" city dweller.


It's like a new car/house/toy. Yeah, its super sick when you first buy it. Then that high start to wear off. Give it a year and people will start to forget about this hype.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Cappy

But none of these happen in a stadium...

Your right. But I was addressing the comment that large music festivals only occur in obscure, remote locations and not within urban environments.

There are still a number of large stadium concerts that occur which Calgary wouldn't be able to attract.

[Frequitude]

Still waiting for someone to give me one super-huge-bigger-than-Calgary-could-ever-imagine festival whose viability hinges upon needing a brand new stadium. Just one.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Still waiting for someone to give me one super-huge-bigger-than-Calgary-could-ever-imagine festival whose viability hinges upon needing a brand new stadium. Just one.

Why would you wait for something that has zero relevance?

[Frequitude]

Powderjunkie, I'm about to disagree with some of which you wrote but just wanted to say great post before I do. Tangible ideas with logical reasoning and actual plans.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Some might think that eliminating chuckwagon races altogether is a non-starter...but that day probably isn't as far away as many might think. A lot of arguments against it, but there are some compelling opportunities from freeing up the space required for the track. Killing fewer horses each year is also a significant benefit when it comes to promoting oneself as a leader in animal care - complex issue of course.

Ok now its on! The sport of chuckwagon racing saves far more horses' lives each year than it loses. They're all retired thoroughbreds who would have no other use after the age of about 4. Most would be sent to slaughter (the ones who don't find a home to live out their days on some benevolent rancher's land). Instead they are repurposed to chuckwagon racing where they get are loved, well cared for, and able to be used for another 10+ years of life. It's the straight up truth. Now yes, we do lose some horses every year and it is absolutely tragic. The sport has taken steps to make it safer (fewer outriders, more penalties for unsafe driving, etc.) and we've experienced fewer losses. But still it is far fewer than if these horses had nothing to do after racing. That's not a wishy washy obscure justification to defend chuckwagon racing. It's really the case.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Instead of their proposed Corral renovation for more conference space, build a combined stadium/event space. If designed properly, there are limitless configurations that could satisfy a lot of needs.

- Stamps Games. (transit = better. parking = better. tailgating = better).
- Shorter afternoon rodeo, with additional entertainment infused (FMX, etc.)
- Short evening rodeo, with enhanced stage show (or headline acts)
- The rest of the year (and the other 6 days a week in football season) you have huge sq ft with high ceilings (at least one side fully retractable seats).
- When not retracted, you've got great options for theatre seating. Could be hugely beneficial for attracting certain conferences (like the religious stuff that takes over the dome a few times each year).
- Even better, the possibility of sectioning off a 4-8000 seat theatre style space - the type of venue this city needs most, as the Corral isn't a great place for shows.
- Also, Stampede is an industry leader in "premium seating" with Ranahan's and Lazy S. New stadium would include that level of stuff too (in addition to corporate boxes replacing current infield suites). Would be a lot more useful than just 10 days a year and for a few weddings.

My first though when reading your post was "Stampede already has a fully amortized Grandstand which serves their needs, why would they put a dime into a new facility". But the "put Corral reno money towards a new outdoor arena with convention/event space they can use during Stampede" is actually pretty good. Gonna need to noodle over it a bit more to put together a comprehensive plan in my head. Valuing it to the Stampede relative to having the fully paid off Grandstand makes it a bit tricky, but there's legs there I think. (except the chucks...leave them in the evening show still!)

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

It may be true, but people feeling good doesn't mean squat economically.

Same guy who looks at the thermometre in November and concludes global warming is a hoax.

Dont know what you expect.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by RM14

Why would you wait for something that has zero relevance?

Well if one existed it goes in the benefit column for a brand new arena. So in theory its relevant. I just don't think any feasibly exist but they were promised in here.

[The Voice of Reason]

I never really realized the Saddledome's deficiencies until I had the opportunity to attend events at other sporting/entertainment facilities.

While I'm not a huge supporter of CalgaryNEXT, I recognize the need to replace the Saddledome. I hope a solution can be found that balances the Flames needs and the city of Calgary's plans for development while maintaining some resemblance of fiscal responsibility for the inevitable public funding that will be required.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Powderjunkie, I'm about to disagree with some of which you wrote but just wanted to say great post before I do. Tangible ideas with logical reasoning and actual plans.

Ok now its on! The sport of chuckwagon racing saves far more horses' lives each year than it loses. They're all retired thoroughbreds who would have no other use after the age of about 4. Most would be sent to slaughter (the ones who don't find a home to live out their days on some benevolent rancher's land). Instead they are repurposed to chuckwagon racing where they get are loved, well cared for, and able to be used for another 10+ years of life. It's the straight up truth. Now yes, we do lose some horses every year and it is absolutely tragic. The sport has taken steps to make it safer (fewer outriders, more penalties for unsafe driving, etc.) and we've experienced fewer losses. But still it is far fewer than if these horses had nothing to do after racing. That's not a wishy washy obscure justification to defend chuckwagon racing. It's really the case.

Don't disagree with anything you said at all - I hesitated to even go down the chuckwagon topic at all (not that is actually that controversial), and was very simplistic in evaluating it while stating it's a complex issue. My main point is that working a chuckwagon track into a new stadium complex could be a very negotiable option (IMO the costs of doing so would outweigh the benefits).

my own opinion on the sport is ever-evolving, though I must admit it is increasingly negative since leaving the Stampede and not being served regular doses of kool-aid. Most animal activists are way out in left field, while I think Stampede's position and approach is fairly reasonable and measured; my opinion lies somewhere in the middle. Personally, I just don't find it to be as entertaining a product / viewer experience for me anymore.

My first though when reading your post was "Stampede already has a fully amortized Grandstand which serves their needs, why would they put a dime into a new facility". But the "put Corral reno money towards a new outdoor arena with convention/event space they can use during Stampede" is actually pretty good. Gonna need to noodle over it a bit more to put together a comprehensive plan in my head. Valuing it to the Stampede relative to having the fully paid off Grandstand makes it a bit tricky, but there's legs there I think. (except the chucks...leave them in the evening show still!)

Yup, it's definitely not an immediate need. Grandstand was built in '74, and I know there is a fair bit of prep work that goes into it each year after it's winterized each fall. Not huge costs, but it might not be too far off from needing some more significant investment. It's a great asset as it is, and allows some good opportunity and flexibility moving ahead in this kind of project (possibly limiting total business disruption during new Stadium construction).

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Same guy who looks at the thermometre in November and concludes global warming is a hoax.

Dont know what you expect.

Why do you have to be so petty? You know I never said that (I'm sure you will try to dig up something I said once and try and twist it into me saying climate change is a hoax) and why would you bring that argument in this thread?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Thing is Bingo, to have a negotiation you have to have two sides that both want something. It doesn't appear like the city is really getting anything that it wants. It wants a dedicated public-use field house, CalgaryNEXT doesn't have that. It wants to continue developing the east village, CalgaryNEXT works against that. It wants to build its tax base with the west village redevelopment, CalgaryNEXT doesn't do that.

So yeah, its looking like the City has no interest in this project at all and why should they?

Then walk away for sure.

However I'm not sure I even agree with your summary.

Diane Colley-Urquhart mentioned in an interview that the committee that kicked off the East Village was already approaching the city on kicking off the West Village as well. The city published a plan to do that. So not sure they see doing both at the same time as a no go as you do.

The CN project has a field house, so I guess if the word "dedicated" is a hang up it can be a deal killer, but that can certainly be negotiated or discussed.

The City has a contamination issue that would certainly be helped by an anchor tenant and a partner to help clean it up.

So no I don't agree that it does nothing for the city. That's not to say they should just say yes and go with it. But nothing is a big stretch in my mind. If the city has a better plan that doesn't include an arena etc they are more than welcome to pursue it though, and I certainly don't have a problem with that.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Then walk away for sure.

However I'm not sure I even agree with your summary.

Diane Colley-Urquhart mentioned in an interview that the committee that kicked off the East Village was already approaching the city on kicking off the West Village as well. The city published a plan to do that. So not sure they see doing both at the same time as a no go as you do.

The CN project has a field house, so I guess if the word "dedicated" is a hang up it can be a deal killer, but that can certainly be negotiated or discussed.

The City has a contamination issue that would certainly be helped by an anchor tenant and a partner to help clean it up.

So no I don't agree that it does nothing for the city. That's not to say they should just say yes and go with it. But nothing is a big stretch in my mind. If the city has a better plan that doesn't include an arena etc they are more than welcome to pursue it though, and I certainly don't have a problem with that.

I don't get why people keep saying this.

The Calgary Flames have made it clear they will not pay any portion of the contamination clean up - they will not be a partner.

An "Anchor" tenant doesn't make the clean up any cheaper. Also, I don't think the CRL discussed by the Flames doesn't account for clean up costs.

If the contamination was cleaned up, and Bow Trail was realigned (all independent costs from the Flames CalgaryNEXT proposal), the area nearly becomes Class A in desirability for future development. CalgaryNEXT doesn't change this, or help it, it simply leeches a CRL which could go to infrastructure upgrades in the WV.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

I never really realized the Saddledome's deficiencies until I had the opportunity to attend events at other sporting/entertainment facilities.

While I'm not a huge supporter of CalgaryNEXT, I recognize the need to replace the Saddledome. I hope a solution can be found that balances the Flames needs and the city of Calgary's plans for development while maintaining some resemblance of fiscal responsibility for the inevitable public funding that will be required.

This is the thing. I would venture to guess that close to 100% of us would love to see a new arena - but a few caveats. It needs to be financed correctly - including so that prices for fans aren't astronomically higher (I think we can expect a ticket tax would be a component), and that there isn't too much burden on the taxpayer either. Also, it needs to be in the right location that can leverage the maximum benefit to the community through spin off uses and be accessible for people walking, or taking transit or driving also. CalgaryNEXT is not that.