Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular
I’m all for improving current facilities like the Oval and the ski jumps and not blowing the budget like Sochi did but your proposal is a tad... boring, not to mention short sighted. Vancouver managed to build legacy facilities and also extend the skytrain to the airport. We can too.
If we host an Olympics that looks exactly like our last did in ‘88 I will be embarassed. I’m all for reigning in largesse but the Saddledome does have real issues such as bathrooms and concourse layout to say nothing of terrible accoustics. To not build a new arena to serve in conjunction with the Dome for the games would be a lost opportunity and extremely short sighted. If that happens I can see the Flames actually leaving as it would be a massive middle finger to the entire negotiating process. We have to stop believing our city is so fantastic that we can’t ever give incentives. This zero sum game won’t work long term.
|
We already have legacy facilities from the 88 Olympics. My point is that we should use the opportunity to upgrade them, not scrap them. It does not concern me if the Olympics look similar to the ones in 88. My concern is that the facilities are safe and effective. As for vision, I can't think of a bigger vision than NOT doing what every other host has done by spending billions on splashy visuals and instead spent the money on improving the CITY for it's citizens.
As for issues with the dome, it's far better to address those issues through renovation rather than throwing the building away. Note that a new arena doesn't always fix those issues you point out. Case in point, Edmonton. Washrooms are still a major sticking point even though they've increased the number of them. Problem being is that more an more washrooms are being locked away from the general public for exclusive use of the patrons who pay for the premium products. Furthermore, washroom space will always compete for concourse space with outlets that actually generate revenue therefore a new arena will always try to build the minimum they think they can get away with.
There is no question that building a new arena WILL allow the Flames to extract more money from the people who can still afford to go, however, unless you can afford to double the amount you spend at a game the benefit to the average Calgarian is minimal at best.
This brings us right back around to argument of who should pay for a new arena. Since the Flames are the ones who stand to benefit, then they should be the ones to pay for it. If the Flames calculate that there is not enough extra revenue in a new arena to justify the investment of a new arena then they are perfectly welcome to stay at the Saddledome and continue to be the top half of league revenue.