Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
DirtyDeeds

The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

Recommended Posts

Libraries in the traditional sense will not serve the city for more than 2 decades and will meet its eventual fate of becoming cemeteries for ink scribed paper buried on shelves.  Libraries must evolve to be like "computer centers" where the public can access Wikipedia, Google, etc.  The future library that serves the city well will be a library online, not a physical place.

 

Stoney Trail must also evolve in time with additional lanes, use of new asphalt-type materials, new type of paints, etc.  What if the next generation of self driving cars require the road to be installed with a special kind of technology?   We would then have to rip apart roads to install this new tech.

 

But nonetheless, my premise is exactly, you cannot measure projects on ROI.  If Detroit can pull off a new arena for the Red Wings in the face of bankruptcy, then I think Calgary can do it for the Flames in tough economy times.

 

Well keep in mind the current downtown Library was built in the 60s and only now being replaced so quite frankily 2 decades is way off and having met with people that run the Library downtown it gets alot more use than you think. Very popular meeting space for business' or organization that don't have their own space. The new Library will also cater to exactly that and not be your traditional books on shelves.

 

With the Stoney trail example one thing to keep in mind is the ongoing construction and maitenance of the road also equals jobs. While there is ongoing and renovations to a private building yes I think over the grand scheme of things a project such as Stoney has a much more significant impact on employment than a private building like the arean would.

 

But we are splitting areas becasue at the end of the day People I do agree you can't measure it by ROI and I agree. At the end of the day the only issue for me with this new building is I dont' think its a smart move right now for the city to spend upwards of 600 million or more on it. I have no doubt they can I just don't consider it smart money and as a taxpayer and someone who fully plans on using it I woudn't support the amount of money. AT probably half of that, I would be more supportive as a taxpayer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we measure the amount of money the city of Calgary will make from building Stoney Trail?  How long would it take for the city to break even on the Stoney Trail project?  There are also a lot of people living in Calgary who do not use Stoney Trail, ever.  So is it fair their tax dollars go towards building the ring road?  Most people who use Stoney Tr only use a fraction of it, like on from one ramp and then off the next.  They have to pay the full amount.  There are also a lot of trucking/shipping companies that use Stoney Tr to pass through Calgary.  They're not even from Calgary and they pay nothing for using the road.

 

Lastly, there are billionaires who use Stoney Trail.  Should billionaires be required to build their own roads instead?

I think economic analyses like this have been done in the past. Nevertheless, it is this logic that has guided environmentalists to say that all roads should be privatized and users pay each time they use them. The 407 in Ontario, Coquihalla is like this etc.

 

We can also maintain that not building roads and infrastructure are costly. After Dewar, we were left with an infrastructure deficit. We need roads, we do not need any stadiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many think the location is a good one ? I don't think so. I also don't think a football field should be part this project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nenshi as mayor is the spokesperson for our city, but he is only one member on the council.  The project will eventually be put forward to the city council for a vote and Nenshi will get one vote.

 

This will live or die based on how many other alderman they can sway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we measure the amount of money the city of Calgary will make from building Stoney Trail?  How long would it take for the city to break even on the Stoney Trail project?  There are also a lot of people living in Calgary who do not use Stoney Trail, ever.  So is it fair their tax dollars go towards building the ring road?  Most people who use Stoney Tr only use a fraction of it, like on from one ramp and then off the next.  They have to pay the full amount.  There are also a lot of trucking/shipping companies that use Stoney Tr to pass through Calgary.  They're not even from Calgary and they pay nothing for using the road.

 

Lastly, there are billionaires who use Stoney Trail.  Should billionaires be required to build their own roads instead?

 

Governments in Canada are not for profit, instead they are there to provide services for all its residents that are in the greater public interest.  This is really a question of what the role of government is and whether or not an activity of the government is within the parameters of that role. 

 

Why does the City not use public money to purchase real estate and build commercial shopping centers, or office towers, or luxury condos? Because it does not exist to turn a profit, instead it exists to plan and direct growth and development of the City.  I would argue that the City should not be investing in an arena to the main benefit of a private sports club.  If you cannot build an arena with private funding, then the NHL business model is flawed.  Should they not plan ahead and set aside a fund from their billions in revenues for the eventual replacement of all of their arenas?  The role of the City should be to approve the arena, not to become an investor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many think the location is a good one ? I don't think so. I also don't think a football field should be part this project.

I think you could separate the projects, but I think the need for a replacement of McMahon is also there.  It's a dump, attendance is down and I don't believe its due to lack of interests, and with newer stadiums in Winnipeg, Regina, Hamilton, and Ottawa, I don't see us hosting a Grey Cup in the near future.  Hosting the Grey Cup might not mean anything to the non-football fans, but it does provide a great economic benefit to the city.  

 

That said the fact that this has become a dual project is solely the fault of the Flames for not acting soon enough on the arena, instead they purchased the entire cities sports teams and inherited another outdated facility.  As supportive as I am for the need of new facilities, I am just too underwhelmed with what has been presented to be fully supportive of a lot of public money going in.  For starters, I'd prefer an outdoor football field.  I can tolerate freezing in November as long as I can sit outside on a July afternoon.  I like the weather elements of watching the game.  Secondly, the pictures of the arena are just plain bland compared to renderings of other arenas.  What does the concourse look like?  What type of amenities will be there?  It's just too meh for what will likely be a billion dollar project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could separate the projects, but I think the need for a replacement of McMahon is also there.  It's a dump, attendance is down and I don't believe its due to lack of interests, and with newer stadiums in Winnipeg, Regina, Hamilton, and Ottawa, I don't see us hosting a Grey Cup in the near future.  Hosting the Grey Cup might not mean anything to the non-football fans, but it does provide a great economic benefit to the city.  

 

That said the fact that this has become a dual project is solely the fault of the Flames for not acting soon enough on the arena, instead they purchased the entire cities sports teams and inherited another outdated facility.  As supportive as I am for the need of new facilities, I am just too underwhelmed with what has been presented to be fully supportive of a lot of public money going in.  For starters, I'd prefer an outdoor football field.  I can tolerate freezing in November as long as I can sit outside on a July afternoon.  I like the weather elements of watching the game.  Secondly, the pictures of the arena are just plain bland compared to renderings of other arenas.  What does the concourse look like?  What type of amenities will be there?  It's just too meh for what will likely be a billion dollar project.

I am not fond of "watching anything" in subzero temps, torrential downpours or blizzards snowfalls.. I work outdoors for a living I can dress for it but why when you can have the bad elements out of play to start with?

 

to satisfy both you and me the stadium needs to be removable or sliding roof. That way when a nice hot July afternoon you can have your roof open, and let the sun shine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could separate the projects, but I think the need for a replacement of McMahon is also there.  It's a dump, attendance is down and I don't believe its due to lack of interests, and with newer stadiums in Winnipeg, Regina, Hamilton, and Ottawa, I don't see us hosting a Grey Cup in the near future.  Hosting the Grey Cup might not mean anything to the non-football fans, but it does provide a great economic benefit to the city.  

 

That said the fact that this has become a dual project is solely the fault of the Flames for not acting soon enough on the arena, instead they purchased the entire cities sports teams and inherited another outdated facility.  As supportive as I am for the need of new facilities, I am just too underwhelmed with what has been presented to be fully supportive of a lot of public money going in.  For starters, I'd prefer an outdoor football field.  I can tolerate freezing in November as long as I can sit outside on a July afternoon.  I like the weather elements of watching the game.  Secondly, the pictures of the arena are just plain bland compared to renderings of other arenas.  What does the concourse look like?  What type of amenities will be there?  It's just too meh for what will likely be a billion dollar project.

I agree with separating them. I could see football and soccer facilities with a retractable roof for the proposed site thus not requiring such a monstrosity of a building. I would utilitize the north parking areas of the Stampede grounds for the new arena and have this breath some life into finishing off this area in a modern way. Taking traffic patterns into consideration I think spreading out entertainment facilities would be best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governments in Canada are not for profit, instead they are there to provide services for all its residents that are in the greater public interest.  This is really a question of what the role of government is and whether or not an activity of the government is within the parameters of that role. 

 

Why does the City not use public money to purchase real estate and build commercial shopping centers, or office towers, or luxury condos? Because it does not exist to turn a profit, instead it exists to plan and direct growth and development of the City.  I would argue that the City should not be investing in an arena to the main benefit of a private sports club.  If you cannot build an arena with private funding, then the NHL business model is flawed.  Should they not plan ahead and set aside a fund from their billions in revenues for the eventual replacement of all of their arenas?  The role of the City should be to approve the arena, not to become an investor.

 

I agree with you in terms of your take on government but in regards to the specific project of building CalgaryNEXT, revitalizing West Village is actually as you put it, "planning and directing growth and development of the city".  Just like when the city bought out East Village and flattened it for development, just like how the city is doing now flattening Currie Barracks for development, the city/province can/should clean-up the creosote and flatten West Village for development.  It is within the role of the city to do this.

 

Moreover, while the city does not build condos, commercial shopping centers, office towers, etc, the city does however build things like convention centres (BMO Centre), arenas (Max Bell), golf courses (McCall Lake), etc.  It's not free to use these facilities.  It costs money.  The idea is to run self-sustaining operations where money earned can cover all costs of maintenance.

 

You now have tenants in some of these outdated facilities like the Flames, Stampeders, Roughnecks, and even worldwide performing artists saying your facilities are too old for use.  They are requesting the city to build new facilities for them.  The response from the city should not be, "if you cannot build an arena with private funds, then your business model is flawed."  There is actually responsibility for the city to provide adequate facilities for their tenant if they want to keep their tenants.  Otherwise, the tenants will move away.

 

Can you imagine,

Tenant:  Hi, your house is too old.  Can you build a new house so I can rent it from you?  I'll even pay for some of it.

Landlord:  No, you have money.  Go build your own house.

Tenant:  What?!

 

Instead, a fair and honest response from Nenshi should be, "we understand our responsibility as landlords to provide the Flames, Stampeders, and Roughnecks with adequate facilities but we don't have enough money right now to make that happen.  We will have to either re-visit this project once the economy turns around or we will have to be more involved in the design and development of this project to find budget friendly alternatives that best suites the financial difficulties we are currently experiencing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what has frustrated Nenshi is the lack of actual preparation and analytics provided mixed in with the arrogance of Ken King. Flames assumed the city would just hand over the $ considering Oilers got it done and Calgary actually needs new facilities . Eventually this thing will be built, likely not exactly as the Flames see it but compromises will be met and agreements reached. I still see this being atkeast 5 years away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what has frustrated Nenshi is the lack of actual preparation and analytics provided mixed in with the arrogance of Ken King. Flames assumed the city would just hand over the $ considering Oilers got it done and Calgary actually needs new facilities . Eventually this thing will be built, likely not exactly as the Flames see it but compromises will be met and agreements reached. I still see this being atkeast 5 years away

I hope not but you could be right as far as walking through the front gates to a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine,

Tenant: Hi, your house is too old. Can you build a new house so I can rent it from you? I'll even pay for some of it.

Landlord: No, you have money. Go build your own house.

Tenant: What?!

Instead, a fair and honest response from Nenshi should be, "we understand our responsibility as landlords to provide the Flames, Stampeders, and Roughnecks with adequate facilities but we don't have enough money right now to make that happen. We will have to either re-visit this project once the economy turns around or we will have to be more involved in the design and development of this project to find budget friendly alternatives that best suites the financial difficulties we are currently experiencing."

These conversations are a bit different than you are portraying. It's more like this.

Tenant: Hi, your house is too old. Can you build a new one so I can rent it from you? I'll even chip in a bit for you.

Landlord: Well, maybe, but I'm a bit short right now. How much are you willing to pitch in?

Tenant: Oh, about 20%. But I do want some benefits for doing so.

Landlord: I guess that makes some sense. You want a break on rent?

Tenant: That would be great! I think maybe free rent for the next 25 years or so seems fair.

Landlord: But isn't that roughly equal to your 20% investment? How am I supposed to make money?

Tenant: Don't worry, lots of other people will rent the house when I'm not home, they will pay. I'll even manage it for you.

Landlord: well that sounds ok I guess. How much will that bring in?

Tenant: Lots, don't worry. I will of course charge a small fee for my services in running the place.

Landlord: I guess that's fair. What's your fee?

Tenant: Should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90% of all revenues. Oh, and I want the money from selling the naming rights.

Landlord: This sounds more like you own the building I spent 800 million on. How exactly do I benefit here?

Tenant: Your house is going to be so awesome, trust me. Everyone will want to build houses around it just to be close, and since you own all the land you can charge them for it.

Landlord: But then I will also have to build roads for them, and provide parking spaces and infrastructure for them. Besides, I own a lot of land and people already pay me to build on it. Wouldn't this just shift the investment from one spot to another?

Tenant: Maybe, but I'm sure some new people will come too, it will be great. Besides, after 25 years I will start paying rent again, and you will make so much money it'll be sick!

Landlord: Isn't the current house like, 30 years old right now? Won't you just me to build a new one in 25-30 years again?

Tenant: Man, you just don't get it. If you don't want my awesome offer, I guess that's fine. I'm sure I can find someone else with a new house to live in, then you'll just have an empty house with no one living in it...

Landlord:...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly the various governments should have the costs and figures. They need to know how much.

 

I can see the cleanup costs being a possible stumbling block. Maybe this location was not the best choice because of the cleanup. Personally I would like to see it happen because of the kickstart to the cleanup.

 

This type of thing does not get cheaper, only more expensive and more problematic as you let it slide. Why has this not been dealt with before now? sitting on a world class fishing river and the various environment departments have not demanded it be cleaned up?

 

The longer you let the cleanup slide(regardless of the Arena projects) the more difficult it is to recover costs from the companies involved. Who is responsible for the cleanup  and for how much, could bring the whole project to a halt for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Flames aren't in a position to complete a full evaluation of the cost of the clean up which is the largest outstanding item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read, Domtar is free and clear from all costs of any cleanup.

They followed the rules/laws in place at the time they owned that property.

 

It's all on the City of Calgary, as they currently own the land, though they may be able to convince the province to pay for a portion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read, Domtar is free and clear from all costs of any cleanup.

They followed the rules/laws in place at the time they owned that property.

 

It's all on the City of Calgary, as they currently own the land, though they may be able to convince the province to pay for a portion.

The City should be equally interested in cleaning up an environmental mess together with a proper development plan for the West End.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to view this project as a series of developments that should be paid for the groups who benefit from it.

 

1. They are already detecting some creosote that has migrated under the Bow River into Hillhurst basements north of Memorial Drive.

Sooner or later, the City of Calgary must deal with this issue. whether a new facility is built on that property or not.

The cleanup will be paid for by the City, hopefully with assistance from the Province of Alberta.

 

2. Nenshi is pushing for another Winter Olympics in Calgary. I foresee a project where the City, Provincial & Federal governments collectively kick in 75% of the hockey arena costs, similar to the original Saddledome deal.

 

3. The Multisport Fieldhouse Stadium should be 3-way split between the team, the City & the Province as the Stampeders will only be using it for 8 - 11 games/yr plus practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically if the Flames really want government funding, the only real bet bet is for the city to bid on (and win) an olympic games. 

 

The governments would then kick in money and the new arena could be done as part of an "olympic village" style development on the west side of downtown. 

 

With or without though there are several issues. 

 

1) The Creosote cleanup - this is something that the city and province are going to have to pay for. No private developer is going to take that land so long as they're on the hook for millions more to do that. They'll just find another parcel elsewhere. 

 

2) The stadium design - overall I like the idea of a clear roof, but the portion over the football stadium should be retractable. 

 

3) The area re-development - there were some brief renderings released of a masterplan by the city a few years ago for the "West Village" but those have to be redone if a stadium is put in (While we're at it how about a new Glenbow as well? Turn it into an arts and entertainment area. Pumphouse theater is supposed to be getting a major expansion, and the old science center is being turned into an art gallery)

 

4) The abysmal road system in the area - this needs complete overhaul and needs to be done first after the cleanup

 

5) The Greyhound station and car lots need to move out before any of this can start. 

 

 

The stadium is a good catalyst for redevelopment. But there's one HUGE problem. 

 

The current economic downturn. Really there's nothing that's going to be done on this project for at least the next 3-5 years until oi and the economy in general turn around and there's money in the city again. Both the provincial and federal governments are projecting deficits, and I don't think that this is anywhere on their radar for priority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope not but you could be right as far as walking through the front gates to a game.

It's really dissapointing, yeah and I was referencing us actually walking into a completed complex in 5 yrs. The reality is this project just became even more expensive in light of the economic conditions, the $CDN alone would kill developers on import costs. It's in the city's best interest to clean up the creosote site as its prime real estate, then actually agreeing on financing...it's going to take some time. The good thing is in the next 5yrs the Oilers new place will be old news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the flood of 2013, does anyone know who insures the Saddledome now?  Another flood would be catastrophic.  I'm wondering if the insurer would be willing to pitch in for the project to move the Flames out of its current location.  In exchange, they get naming rights for 20-years or something along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those asking for a retracable roof I think its worth pointing out that according to King it would add, approximately, 150-200million to the cost of the project. Considering this is going to be a hard sell at 890 million I think its an absolute no good at over 1 billion dollars. A translucent roof is a pretty good compromise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the flood of 2013, does anyone know who insures the Saddledome now?  Another flood would be catastrophic.  I'm wondering if the insurer would be willing to pitch in for the project to move the Flames out of its current location.  In exchange, they get naming rights for 20-years or something along those lines.

 

I hope its not Dick Insurance.  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those asking for a retracable roof I think its worth pointing out that according to King it would add, approximately, 150-200million to the cost of the project. Considering this is going to be a hard sell at 890 million I think its an absolute no good at over 1 billion dollars. A translucent roof is a pretty good compromise. 

I find that hard to believe those figure to be over and above the roof proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...