Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
DirtyDeeds

The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

Recommended Posts

They had no plan B. Nothing....

They have about 2 months to respond and a meeting Monday with City Council.

The city has suggested an alternative:

  1. Upgrade or build at Stampede Park for arena
  2. Upgrade or rebuild at McMahon for fieldhouse.

As a born and raised Calgarian I have appreciation for a project that would clean up this mess in West Village. It should have been cleaned up a long time ago when they realized there was this problem and should have made the company responsible for the mess pay for some or all costs. They(City, Province and all environment departments) didn't so accepted the cost to clean up whenever that will be.

It appears at this time that by underestimating the cleanup costs that the Next proposal is done. Both timeframe and cost.

 

It also appears the City and any others involved are not interested in undertaking the cost to start the cleanup with or without the project.

 

KK stalled for years. Project has fail written all over it now and poorly thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't, but they will pay property taxes that an arena will not generate. I think the problem the city is going to have, or say they will have, is what is the overall benefit to us to spend a huge amount of money on something that won't generate much revenue for the city? Most studies will show you that arenas have a very small net benefit, if they have a benefit at all, in terms of money back to a municipality, whereas if the city spent the 400-500 million just to clean up the land and get it ready for developers, it would generate more revenue back to them so overall I think it would be a net benefit to the city. 

 

I wonder if part of the issue for the city is do they want such prime real estate going to a building that they won't see as much benefit from? From a stricly dollars and cents perspective, I don't think there is any debate that it is is far better interest for the city to use that land to sell to developers as opposed to build an arena. 

 

Simple solution. Agree to let the Flame's build there and pay the cleanup costs.

 

But on the condition that there will now be a 5% tax on every ticket sold to every Flames/Stamps/Hitman/Professional game hosted there and on any concert hosted there. 

 

College/highschool/community uses would be tax exempt. 

 

The average price for a Flames ticket i 2013 (fastest i could find on google) was $262.  A 5% tax would therefore be about 15 bucks a ticket. 

 

$15 per ticket

x20,000 per game

X41 games per year

 

12.3 million from Flames tickets alone annually. 

 

Just off the professional teams (Flames, Hitmen, Roughnecks, Stamps) you're looking at about 25 million per year in a ticket tax like that. 

 

Then add in all the concerts that would be put on. Im pretty sure that would eclipse the property taxes for a similar amount of land used. 

 

 

 

It also appears the City and any others involved are not interested in undertaking the cost to start the cleanup with or without the project.

 

 

Which is horribly short-sighted in an i-dont-want-to-risk-the-next-election kinda way.

6) Calgary Flames – Avg Price: $262.10 (up $25)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not criticizing them for create a proposal. I'm criticizing them for creating a very weak proposal after spending over 5 years telling people we need a new arena but we "just aren't there yet". This feasibility study should have taken place years ago and IMO the Flames never should have put forth a proposal that rested on such flimsy and out to lunch ideas and numbers. This was very poorly planned on King's part.

 

Food for thought, Katz bought in the Oilers in 2008. 2 years later he had a report for Edmonton City council to debate, within 5 years he had the funding approved and in just over 8 will have a new building. Its been 5 or 6 years now and the best King has managed is a feasibility study to show his own idea was crappy and he has said publicly multiple times, there is no plan B. 

 

I'm all for a new arena, but its pretty hard to get around the fact that King and co have done a very poor job going about this new arena and their proposal. I'm not shocked, King doesn't do a good job with many things so just add this to the list. 

Cross, I'm not sure where you think King did a shoddy job.  The City basically agreed with what he put forward on the facility itself.  King never outlined road/utility costs(not his responsibility), and he was trying to be a catalyst for the clean-up discussion(which has happened).  As for the 6 years to clean-up, I wouldn't believe everything just because someone puts it into a report.  Cochrane had a similar contamination issue and once a developer got serious it was dealt with like in two years.  You will note 3 year of the supposed clean-up is to get permits.  Like it takes that long if you are really trying.  The City is going to be on the hook for the 100's of millions of clean-up and road/utility dollars whether this project proceeds or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple solution. Agree to let the Flame's build there and pay the cleanup costs.

 

But on the condition that there will now be a 5% tax on every ticket sold to every Flames/Stamps/Hitman/Professional game hosted there and on any concert hosted there. 

 

There is already a ticket tax and let's be honest who doesn't think prices will go up once the new building opens? do you want to provide the Flames ANOTHER avenue to add costs to going to a game? I'm fine with costs going up to a certain degree to fund it but I think this is going to make a game just that much more expensive.

 

However, where I would fully agree with you is a reasonable agreement is the City pays all the costs for transportation, re mediation, utilities etc and turns the land over the Flames and they build the entire arena. City chips in 200 million for the fieldhouse and then the flames are on the hook for the remaining 700. I don't think the Flames will go for it, but I think its a pretty fair compromise. 

 

Cross, I'm not sure where you think King did a shoddy job.  The City basically agreed with what he put forward on the facility itself.  King never outlined road/utility costs(not his responsibility), and he was trying to be a catalyst for the clean-up discussion(which has happened).  As for the 6 years to clean-up, I wouldn't believe everything just because someone puts it into a report.  Cochrane had a similar contamination issue and once a developer got serious it was dealt with like in two years.  You will note 3 year of the supposed clean-up is to get permits.  Like it takes that long if you are really trying.  The City is going to be on the hook for the 100's of millions of clean-up and road/utility dollars whether this project proceeds or not.

 

Becuase after 6 years of planning this is the best you can do? The containminated land is not knew, everyone know it was there and everyone knew it was going to be expensive to clean up. Not only that, everyone also knows that is a terrible spot for traffic instructure. Quite honestly, i'm not sure the Flames could have picked a less feasible spot. If this was about having a conversation, why not make the proposal 5 or 6 years ago so the conversation and study could have been done by now?

 

You could be right, I am just passing on what was in the report and the report estimated it was going to be a minimum of 6 years. Maybe its faster but i'm just going off of that. 

 

I actually disagree with those who are saying the city wants to ignore this and wont' do anything about it, in fact I think the opposite. I think the city is going to clean up the land regardless of what the Arena plan is. I jsut don't think they want to pay to clean up it up, get it ready and then kick in ANOTHER 400 million plus for a stadium. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already a ticket tax and let's be honest who doesn't think prices will go up once the new building opens? do you want to provide the Flames ANOTHER avenue to add costs to going to a game? I'm fine with costs going up to a certain degree to fund it but I think this is going to make a game just that much more expensive.

 

However, where I would fully agree with you is a reasonable agreement is the City pays all the costs for transportation, re mediation, utilities etc and turns the land over the Flames and they build the entire arena. City chips in 200 million for the fieldhouse and then the flames are on the hook for the remaining 700. I don't think the Flames will go for it, but I think its a pretty fair compromise.

 

I don't know what the current ticket tax is (wasn't actually aware there was one honestly) but I don't think that adding to it to pay for the remediation costs of a new building is horribly unreasonable. Of course it depends how much no debate there. But I think its an option hat should be considered. 

 

Your seond paragraph is also fine by me and was my initial suggestion (or similar enough) when the project was announced. 

 

 

 

Becuase after 6 years of planning this is the best you can do? The containminated land is not knew, everyone know it was there and everyone knew it was going to be expensive to clean up. Not only that, everyone also knows that is a terrible spot for traffic instructure. Quite honestly, i'm not sure the Flames could have picked a less feasible spot. If this was about having a conversation, why not make the proposal 5 or 6 years ago so the conversation and study could have been done by now?

 

You could be right, I am just passing on what was in the report and the report estimated it was going to be a minimum of 6 years. Maybe its faster but i'm just going off of that. 

 

I actually disagree with those who are saying the city wants to ignore this and wont' do anything about it, in fact I think the opposite. I think the city is going to clean up the land regardless of what the Arena plan is. I jsut don't think they want to pay to clean up it up, get it ready and then kick in ANOTHER 400 million plus for a stadium.

 

I'm not sure where youd suggest that is more feasible though. The only other open tract of land in the core was the East Village, and the master plan for that was done years ago. 

 

The Stadium needs to be on a major transit route and that means the LRT. Even if you move it out of downtown there are no good options. Ignoring the Green line which won't be running for 20 years...

 

Along the West LRT line there's no empty space large enough for any stadium. 

 

Along the South LRT there may be some spaces along Macleod, but that would involve massive land purchases and a huge amount of traffic increase on an already congested road. 

 

Along the NE LRT the only open space is by the Zoo where the parking lots are. (which might not be a horrible idea for better use of the land by that and the science center) but its really hard to access that by car. 

 

Finally the only space along the NW LRT line is where MacMahon is now. As I live in the area I'm going to be honest and say that there is sufficient car and LRT access that that could work. But there are two problems: 

 

1) The crowchild redevelopment in that area may well disrupt construction in that area for a while

2) That's University owned land. Its unlikely that they'd just hand that over to the Flames organization without one very protracted land deal.

 

 

So the only real option for a project like this is the West Village which needed some jumpstart to redevelop anyway. 

 

 

Based on the roadblocks they're throwing up for the Stadium, I'd be willing to bet that if the Next project doesn't go ahead it will be 2030 on an optimistic timeline before you see remediation even attempted

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think there is only one option in all of Calgary then your drinking the Flames koolaid on this one.

The bottom line is this looks terrible for the Flames. Especially when King has said repeatedly there is no plan B.

This is a billion dollar project that has been years in the making. This isn't acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right. Where do you suggest that is: 

 

1) Along a Transit Corridor (preferably LRT, but I'll accept BRT)

2) Relatively close to the center of the city (lets say less than 60th Street/avenue in any direction)

3) Near a relatively high capacity road

4) Has either: 

     a ) an existing empty space

     b ) contiguous properties that could be purchased and cleared without significant expropriation (Or difficult land deals)

 

 

If you can point to another place that fits those criteria that isn't a park, then I'll agree with you. 

 

 

McMahon lot fits Criteria 1-3 but fails 4

 

The Zoo parking lots fit criteria 1, 2 and 4, (assuming you build a parkade) but fails on 3. 

 

Those are the other suggestions that I can even think of being close.

 

 

 

(also re: Flames Coolaid. Even before this was announced I've long thought that that was the best area for a new stadium pairing to be put. Just FYI)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right. Where do you suggest that is: 

 

1) Along a Transit Corridor (preferably LRT, but I'll accept BRT)

2) Relatively close to the center of the city (lets say less than 60th Street/avenue in any direction)

3) Near a relatively high capacity road

4) Has either: 

     a ) an existing empty space

     b ) contiguous properties that could be purchased and cleared without significant expropriation (Or difficult land deals)

 

 

If you can point to another place that fits those criteria that isn't a park, then I'll agree with you. 

 

 

McMahon lot fits Criteria 1-3 but fails 4

 

The Zoo parking lots fit criteria 1, 2 and 4, (assuming you build a parkade) but fails on 3. 

 

Those are the other suggestions that I can even think of being close.

 

 

 

(also re: Flames Coolaid. Even before this was announced I've long thought that that was the best area for a new stadium pairing to be put. Just FYI)

Lots of room in East Village or Stampede park where both pretty much handle all your above concerns:

0db4062c42d83c9511ae70915c2d6e7e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually despite current build out there is precisely one city block of land available in the east village Labeled "K" on this map in orange

 

Everything in red is in progress of development, everthing in blue has been zoned and is awaiting developer. 
 
CMLC+Masterplan+Map+-+March+2015.jpg

 

Even that block is iffy because you can see they want "the rift" walking path to cut through the buildings there, making a stadium basically out of the question unless its elevated with a walkway beneath (and I doubt you can fit two stadiums in a city block. 

 

So no, East Village is not an option as it fails criteria 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The stampeed grounds MAYBE are an option. For ONE stadium. 

The northern part of the grounds has already been plotted out for the new "Youth Campus" north of the existing gate on 14th Ave

 

3D-Image-with-Opera-House-Concept-Novemb

 

That leaves the 2 blocks between 12th and 14th Ave, and Olympic Way and 5th Street right behind Cowboys.

 

Two city blocks is about 125% the size of the current Saddle dome. Which means that you can fit one arena there, not both. Its about equi-distant from the train station as the current dome. So OK that works. But that leaves the football stadium and field house out of the equation.

 

 

So that fails Criteria 4 as well. 

 

 

If you want to fit both anywhere around there you're looking at the current bus barn just by the river. With the CPR right-of-way and the neighbourhood on the other side of Elbow that's going to be a tough land deal, and is also getting to be quite far from the LRT station. 

 

Therefore it likely fails Criteria 4, and definitely fails Criteria 1 unless you expect people to take a 20 minute walk from the train or there to be shuttle service provided.

 

 

Keep trying. Trust me I've looked and if you can find something I haven't I'd be happy. But I follow Calgary development as a hobby, and its very hard to find large parcels anywhere near the middle of town now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgarynext-flames-ken-king-council-reaction-1.3546467

 

Ken King has responded (not officially to city council but to CBC.ca)

 

"We predicted that our project was $890 million," King said. "We did not say that there were not ancillary costs nor did we try to shield or hide that notion."

 

So like basically, $1.8-billion is relatively consistent with their original estimate of $890-million... 

 

Ken King and the ownership group is also open to competing visions and if anybody wants to present one...


All right. Where do you suggest that is: 

 

1) Along a Transit Corridor (preferably LRT, but I'll accept BRT)

2) Relatively close to the center of the city (lets say less than 60th Street/avenue in any direction)

3) Near a relatively high capacity road

4) Has either: 

     a ) an existing empty space

     b ) contiguous properties that could be purchased and cleared without significant expropriation (Or difficult land deals)

 

 

If you can point to another place that fits those criteria that isn't a park, then I'll agree with you. 

 

 

McMahon lot fits Criteria 1-3 but fails 4

 

The Zoo parking lots fit criteria 1, 2 and 4, (assuming you build a parkade) but fails on 3. 

 

Those are the other suggestions that I can even think of being close.

 

 

 

(also re: Flames Coolaid. Even before this was announced I've long thought that that was the best area for a new stadium pairing to be put. Just FYI)

 

 

I tend to think they can build the new arena where CalgaryNext proposed the West Village condo's to go.  Just slide the whole damn thing a bit further West and remove the condo portion of it. Done and done.  

 

The creosote is beneath the Greyhound Station, so don't touch it.  Leave the Greyhound Station where it is.  Just build further into the Pumphouse Theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right. Where do you suggest that is:

1) Along a Transit Corridor (preferably LRT, but I'll accept BRT)

2) Relatively close to the center of the city (lets say less than 60th Street/avenue in any direction)

3) Near a relatively high capacity road

4) Has either:

a ) an existing empty space

b ) contiguous properties that could be purchased and cleared without significant expropriation (Or difficult land deals)

If you can point to another place that fits those criteria that isn't a park, then I'll agree with you.

McMahon lot fits Criteria 1-3 but fails 4

The Zoo parking lots fit criteria 1, 2 and 4, (assuming you build a parkade) but fails on 3.

Those are the other suggestions that I can even think of being close.

(also re: Flames Coolaid. Even before this was announced I've long thought that that was the best area for a new stadium pairing to be put. Just FYI)

Adjust the criteria then. We might have to add one that says not to build it on polluted land that will add hundreds of millions and years to the project.

They may not be able to build a multi complex in the city. Perhaps that isn't realistic.

The point is that it looks like King put forward an impractical proposal that is way off of what was projected. He brought in heavy hitters like Bettman to pressure the city before the evaluation was even complete. Plus he went on record saying this is the only option and there is no plan B. The entire thing looks amateur.

If it ends up that the city evaluation is way off base and the cost and time are closer to what King projected then I will take back my comments. But there is no way a 2 billion dollar project is getting funded in this economic climate. So footprint or not, that location is about as practical as the moon if the city projections are accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the current ticket tax is (wasn't actually aware there was one honestly) but I don't think that adding to it to pay for the remediation costs of a new building is horribly unreasonable. Of course it depends how much no debate there. But I think its an option hat should be considered. 

 

Your seond paragraph is also fine by me and was my initial suggestion (or similar enough) when the project was announced. 

 

 

I'm not sure where youd suggest that is more feasible though. The only other open tract of land in the core was the East Village, and the master plan for that was done years ago. 

 

The Stadium needs to be on a major transit route and that means the LRT. Even if you move it out of downtown there are no good options. Ignoring the Green line which won't be running for 20 years...

 

Along the West LRT line there's no empty space large enough for any stadium. 

 

Along the South LRT there may be some spaces along Macleod, but that would involve massive land purchases and a huge amount of traffic increase on an already congested road. 

 

Along the NE LRT the only open space is by the Zoo where the parking lots are. (which might not be a horrible idea for better use of the land by that and the science center) but its really hard to access that by car. 

 

Finally the only space along the NW LRT line is where MacMahon is now. As I live in the area I'm going to be honest and say that there is sufficient car and LRT access that that could work. But there are two problems: 

 

1) The crowchild redevelopment in that area may well disrupt construction in that area for a while

2) That's University owned land. Its unlikely that they'd just hand that over to the Flames organization without one very protracted land deal.

 

 

So the only real option for a project like this is the West Village which needed some jumpstart to redevelop anyway. 

 

 

Based on the roadblocks they're throwing up for the Stadium, I'd be willing to bet that if the Next project doesn't go ahead it will be 2030 on an optimistic timeline before you see remediation even attempted

 

A portion of every ticket goes directly to the Flames, and part of their funding model was to instead of keeping the ticket tax, start to direct that to help repay for the construction of the stadium. So essentially the "ticket tax" that the Flames keep referring to when they talk about financing the building is them moving revenue off their books to someone elses. I find it hard to believe that they would do that and not increase prices to they can help pay the building but also keep some money for themselves. Adding more taxes to tickets is going to make it that much harder for people to want to go to games. 

 

Fair point and I should probably change to i'm not sure the Flames could have picked a less "economically" viable location. I also agree with Kehatch that as much as I thought the idea of having everything in 1 spot was cool, i don't think its feasible. I think the Flames are going to have to look at an arena and stadium project separate. I think the city might get behind building jsut the arena in West Village. Like you and I said above, get the city to pay for all the infrastructure costs and the flames build the arena. The Flames committed close to 500 million of their own money and I would suspect that will build you a pretty solid arena.  Find another spot for McMahon. 

 

I actually think the West Village is a really bad spot for the Fieldhouse too. I don't the primary users or the fieldhouse is going to be the general public its going to be amatuer athletics, alot of which attend or already train at the University. So is the Fieldhouse really going to get properly utilized if its in West Village? I don't think so. I get why the Flames put it there, they wanted that funding to help offset their cost but I don't think its the right spot. So the more I've thought about it the less I like the idea of a big mega project like that in West Village. I could get behind an Arena/Stadium deal but I think the cost is still going to be too high on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Timing is everything and I don't think any of these plans move ahead while oil is where it is and a NDP government in power. They might as well take the next 3 to 5 years and sort out a much better plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adjust the criteria then. We might have to add one that says not to build it on polluted land that will add hundreds of millions and years to the project.

They may not be able to build a multi complex in the city. Perhaps that isn't realistic......

 

The thing is to build any arena those are minimal criteria - car access, transit access, space, reaosonable location. You couldn't get more minimal criteria than that. 

 

As for whether or not we can build a multi-complex, that's a possible debate. But I'd be curious to know if building 2 separate stadiums and a field house would cost any less than building all 3 in one place (personally I'd expect it would cost more, but I don't have the experience in construction or economics to actually say). 

 

 

 

 

 

I tend to think they can build the new arena where CalgaryNext proposed the West Village condo's to go.  Just slide the whole damn thing a bit further West and remove the condo portion of it. Done and done.  

 

The creosote is beneath the Greyhound Station, so don't touch it.  Leave the Greyhound Station where it is.  Just build further into the Pumphouse Theater.

 

 

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Creosote contamination covered the Greyhound station AND all the car lots in the area which is why they've been car lots all this time. 

 

Its really hard to find an actual map of the contamination. 

 

However, THIS paper: http://74.3.176.63/publications/recorder/1994/04apr/apr94-gpr-investigation.pdf

 

Suggests that it would cover that land as well since you can see the ties stacked along the river all the way to the current location of Pumphouse Theater. The writing states specifically that it is bordered by 14th avenue and Crowchild, suggesting the entire West Village (not just the bus station) is affected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Creosote contamination covered the Greyhound station AND all the car lots in the area which is why they've been car lots all this time.

Its really hard to find an actual map of the contamination.

However, THIS paper: http://74.3.176.63/publications/recorder/1994/04apr/apr94-gpr-investigation.pdf

Suggests that it would cover that land as well since you can see the ties stacked along the river all the way to the current location of Pumphouse Theater. The writing states specifically that it is bordered by 14th avenue and Crowchild, suggesting the entire West Village (not just the bus station) is affected.

I was led to believe by Ken King at the CalgaryNext proposal that the creosote was located just North of the Greyhound station along the river bank and nowhere else. He was asked where exactly the creosote was and he pointed at the big screen.

That report you linked pretty much explodes my suggestion and reveals how little King understood the extend of creosote contamination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is to build any arena those are minimal criteria - car access, transit access, space, reaosonable location. You couldn't get more minimal criteria than that.

As for whether or not we can build a multi-complex, that's a possible debate. But I'd be curious to know if building 2 separate stadiums and a field house would cost any less than building all 3 in one place (personally I'd expect it would cost more, but I don't have the experience in construction or economics to actually say).

As you have pointed out, the only block of land that meets reasonable criteria to build both arenas is the one contaminated and expensive to clean up. If that is true then they may need to build them in separate locations.

Personally I would love to see them build it at Crossiron Mills. But I understand the lack of transit and municipal funding that makes that impractical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have pointed out, the only block of land that meets reasonable criteria to build both arenas is the one contaminated and expensive to clean up. If that is true then they may need to build them in separate locations.

Personally I would love to see them build it at Crossiron Mills. But I understand the lack of transit and municipal funding that makes that impractical.

Yes, I agree on CrossIron Mills too. Develop it into a huge entertainment/sports district. With the excellent highway links it already has great access to most of the city. Although just outside the city at the moment it could easily be annexed.

One way or another, someone needs some vision for the city going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who lived in Calgary in his youth (age 8-13), I am enjoying this debate as I knew nothing about these issues back then.

 

Also, one suggestion, instead of building up, we could build down. Ie, find a plot of land big enough that fits all the criteria for transit and location, then build under whatever is there. The cost to build underground is probably less than to clean up the contaminated area. Besides, how cool would it be to have the only NHL arena that could double as a disaster bunker?

 

The benefits are that you are protected from all the elements, the ground provides some natural insulation, the novelty attraction, and all the usage for emergency shelters. Charge the owners of other buildings a fee to connect up to our stadium (not including the owners of the land we built under) and you can get some funds.

 

Anyone have any good name suggestions for this proposed arena?

 

[i am mostly joking, but building underneath current downtown could solve some of the available land issues and come on you have to admit that it's a cool idea (and more feasible than a sky stadium)]

*x-strike is currently pot stirring with reckless abandon*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who lived in Calgary in his youth (age 8-13), I am enjoying this debate as I knew nothing about these issues back then.

 

Also, one suggestion, instead of building up, we could build down. Ie, find a plot of land big enough that fits all the criteria for transit and location, then build under whatever is there. The cost to build underground is probably less than to clean up the contaminated area. Besides, how cool would it be to have the only NHL arena that could double as a disaster bunker?

 

The benefits are that you are protected from all the elements, the ground provides some natural insulation, the novelty attraction, and all the usage for emergency shelters. Charge the owners of other buildings a fee to connect up to our stadium (not including the owners of the land we built under) and you can get some funds.

 

Anyone have any good name suggestions for this proposed arena?

 

[i am mostly joking, but building underneath current downtown could solve some of the available land issues and [i]come on[/i] you have to admit that it's a cool idea (and more feasible than a sky stadium)]

*x-strike is currently pot stirring with reckless abandon*

How about half-buried bunker like the South end of Nose Hill? Terrific views, still have the park above, but would need transit. Perhaps a gondola from DT? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree on CrossIron Mills too. Develop it into a huge entertainment/sports district. With the excellent highway links it already has great access to most of the city. Although just outside the city at the moment it could easily be annexed.

One way or another, someone needs some vision for the city going forward.

 

I like the concept of the entertainment district.  Look at Staples Center.  Or even the Gilla River Arena.  Those areas have more than just a rink.  The spinoff benefit is big.  

 

Maybe it's just me but I think the idea of combining the venue is nuts.  A rehab to McMann Stadium would cost around $65-80m.

Stick to replacing the Saddledome as a separate venue.  Design something that wows.  Build it where it is accessable.  Get is away from a polluted site the city has dragged its heels on for years.

 

The concept may have been a "high priced option" to allow a lower priced option to get quick approval.  Environmental cleanups are something hockey needs to stay away from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think McMahon is past the point of rehab and I'm not sure they can turn it into anything but an average at best stadium. I understand an arena is likely more of a priority for the flames but there is no question that if you want to talk about which one is needed more, it's McMahon. I'm a huge stamps fan and I would honestly rather watch most of the games on TV then suffer through an outing at McMahon. It's truly a terrible facility and I don't see how they can make it into a working one it needs to be replaced and IMO before a arena. I get the extra revenue debate and that's why the arena is taking more priority but if you want to talk from a pure fan experience there is no question in my mind that calgary needs a new stadium before an arena.

I do agree that a huge mega facility is not likely going to work but I don't agree at all with the idea of trying to save money by just renovating McMahon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think McMahon is past the point of rehab and I'm not sure they can turn it into anything but an average at best stadium. I understand an arena is likely more of a priority for the flames but there is no question that if you want to talk about which one is needed more, it's McMahon. I'm a huge stamps fan and I would honestly rather watch most of the games on TV then suffer through an outing at McMahon. It's truly a terrible facility and I don't see how they can make it into a working one it needs to be replaced and IMO before a arena. I get the extra revenue debate and that's why the arena is taking more priority but if you want to talk from a pure fan experience there is no question in my mind that calgary needs a new stadium before an arena.

I do agree that a huge mega facility is not likely going to work but I don't agree at all with the idea of trying to save money by just renovating McMahon.

 

What would be the cost of building a new version in the same location?  Logistics aside, I'm curious about the cost.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the cost of building a new version in the same location?  Logistics aside, I'm curious about the cost.

I would be too. I don't think the current location is horrible to be honest. Not ideal but I think the downtown location is more important for hockey then it is for football. Football is one game a week, people will travel for that, but 2 sometimes 3 hockey games a week and most of them weekdays you need a downtown area IMO.

I think th bigger question is where would the stamps play while the new stadium was being built? Doubt very much you could tear down McMahon and build a new one in the matter of about 8 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be too. I don't think the current location is horrible to be honest. Not ideal but I think the downtown location is more important for hockey then it is for football. Football is one game a week, people will travel for that, but 2 sometimes 3 hockey games a week and most of them weekdays you need a downtown area IMO.

I think th bigger question is where would the stamps play while the new stadium was being built? Doubt very much you could tear down McMahon and build a new one in the matter of about 8 months.

I wonder why you couldnt design the new arena to handle football games. The field is bigger but the lower bowl can roll back seats to expand the floor area already in the saddle dome. 

 

Designing a 35000 seat stadium is not practical for flames games (infact they dont project more seats with their current design, just more suites and primo seats) so the question is, does the stamps need 35000 seats for stamps games? Or will 15-20k seats in an ENCLOSED area be of more use? Obviously scale ticket pricing to match. 

 

Im thinking there is a market for those paying $35 to sit outside in October to sit inside at $70.

 

 

The ideal thing about the stamps is that they typically play in the non hockey months so it gives the venue another 10-12 solid uses per year. 

That said, I think the field house/mcmahon replacement may be something that a world games or olympics heralds in as a venue for opening/closing ceremonies and whatever events can take place on the floor of the venue. Thinking curling might be a good fit or even some of the figure skating events. 

Hockey obviously in new facility

COP for ski jumps/snowboard/luge/bobsleigh, etc

Mountains for some of the alpine events

We already have the oval for speed skating, but maybe it needs a larger venue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why you couldnt design the new arena to handle football games. The field is bigger but the lower bowl can roll back seats to expand the floor area already in the saddle dome. 

 

 

 

I'm not engineer, but I think the fact that a football field is more than double the size of NHL ice would make it pretty much impossible. I get what you are saying with rolling back the lower bowl, but you basiclaly would have to remove the lower bowl entirely. Not to mention, your sight lines for football and hockey are very different so I think it makes it impossible to design a facitlity that could be used for both. Again, no engineer but I don't see it as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...