New Downtown Calgary Arena

[O-tacular]

I'm not holding my breath for a reveal anytime soon. King keeps saying it's months away and that timeframe turns into years.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Covered, uncovered. I don't care either way. They could even go subterranean for all I care. Just as long as the tax payer isn't footing the bill and infrastructure improvements are kept to a dull roar.

Digging for a massive complex might be an easy fix for the contamination issues in the West Village.

Being a transplant from Mulletville how do you feel about the new Edmonton arena?? The design is great but Katz really fucked the taxpayers IMO.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Being a transplant from Mulletville how do you feel about the new Edmonton arena?? The design is great but Katz really fucked the taxpayers IMO.

What's the private vs public cost for other recent arenas?

Quebec city: 200M province, 200M City

[hulkrogan]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Don't have a precise answer, but the BMO centre's schedule is absolutely packed, and Calgary loses many conferences every year because lack of facilities, or no space in a schedule.

Each event of this type is 3-5 days of revenue on average, as the actual event is 1-3 days (and sometimes more). So that means each item is multiple revenue days.

BC Place has about 2 or 3 conventions and 2 concerts booked between now and November.

That is for a city twice the size.

You build the stadium for football and soccer. No one likes watching games indoors. I bet a sizeable component of the warm summer night stamps crowds drop off if it's indoors.

I'm not wasting a warm summer night indoors, yet the one time I will go watch a CFL game is if it's a nice day and I can watch outside.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

What's the private vs public cost for other recent arenas?

Quebec city: 200M province, 200M City

Devils are in the details, with the lease agreement when the city owns the arena, not just the capital financing side.

It is easy to get lost with the upfront.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Being a transplant from Mulletville how do you feel about the new Edmonton arena?? The design is great but Katz really fucked the taxpayers IMO.

Love the design but Katz bent them over. The taxpayer will be paying for it for decades. I would have rather seen the money spent elsewhere.

[roman]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Sorry? Unless you are predicting a sudden climate shift towards possible, sudden hurricane conditions upon completion of the stadium, I have no idea what you're talking about.

People have been watching football outside here for over 100 years and weather is an important part of the game. Also, I can't imagine being stuck inside during the beautiful sunny days we often get for summer games. Some people are such wusses these days. Put on some snow pants and a toque and get out there.

Sorry, but I am not a fan of sitting out in the cold for several hours even if it is to watch a great football game. I would be ok with a glass roof or retractable roof. In my opinion an open air stadium would set us back and its use would be limited. I know that dollars will dictate, but if they are really planning on building a new stadium, having it enclosed really makes sense to me.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by roman

Sorry, but I am not a fan of sitting out in the cold for several hours even if it is to watch a great football game. I would be ok with a glass roof or retractable roof. In my opinion an open air stadium would set us back and its use would be limited. I know that dollars will dictate, but if they are really planning on building a new stadium, having it enclosed really makes sense to me.

You are right that a retractable roof would make the stadium much more useful for a variety of purposes.

I enjoy a good winter game in snowy conditions, but I do also understand that bad weather outdoors is as much as a turn-off as good weather indoors (i just wish that weren't the case). I wonder if they could actually keep up with a policy of uncovered games, regardless of weather, if a retractable roof were installed. Doubt it... a few low-attendance games and the roof would be covering every winter game after that.

I am sure (at least I hope) that the Flames organization has gone through a ton of options and have chosen a good balance between initial construction costs and ongoing potential cash-flow. Certainly have had copious amounts of time to look at anything and everything available.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^Part (most) of the problem with the big O and any indoor stadium is it is made for many uses meaning compromises are made that make some events worse than others. That's the definition of multipurpose: sucking at everything in some manner.

It's 14C in Calgary today. I'm thinking MLS in April will always work.

It is particularly difficult when multi-purpose includes a baseball diamond. The skydome and the big O had that massive challenge, but other places that are used in a multi-purpose fashion without the need for baseball do just fine.

[CalgaryAlex]

Suburbia, I do like your idea for a concert hall at one end of the Saddledome. What if the other side was a curved set of offices, and a conference hall on the bottom?

Furthermore, take out a portion of the middle of the roof for sunlight penetration and build a public square/market there. Make either end of the public area open-air as well, integrating it with the pathway system to the SE and Olympic Way to the NW. Integrate some more permanent structures along the outdoor pathway from Victoria Park Station to the Saddledome, perhaps. Once the population in East Beltline increases with The Guadrian, Orchard and and few other vacant blocks, there could be the population density to justify such a destination only a few blocks away. Could become a permanent people-gathering location for the Stampede (of which they are sorely lacking).

Ok... end of fantasy!

I don't know... anything would be better than leaving it to rust, only to become another relic like the Corral.

[Luk_o]

Keep it open air! It's part of the game, thats what beer jackets are for. Just larger overhangs and better wind mitigation design.

[DizzyEdge]

open air and heated seats/benches?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Furthermore, take out a portion of the middle of the roof for sunlight penetration and build a public square/market there. Make either end of the public area open-air as well, integrating it with the pathway system to the SE and Olympic Way to the NW.

Saddledome roof stays up with a series of tension cables. Can't just cut a hole like that, though I suppose some of the squares of concrete could become a panel of windows.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Saddledome roof stays up with a series of tension cables. Can't just cut a hole like that, though I suppose some of the squares of concrete could become a panel of windows.

I figured that was the case, although I am sure some solution could be found for something ambitious like this.

[tovan]

http://stadiumdb.com/designs/rus/vtb_arena
This would do nicely.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by tovan

http://stadiumdb.com/designs/rus/vtb_arena
This would do nicely.

I don't think there is enough room without a massive do-over for the roads network.
http://stadiumdb.com/pic-projects/vtb_arena/vtb_arena16.jpg

I also wonder that even if something like that can work, if there is enough good space for density, commercial, entertainment around that area?

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Love the design but Katz bent them over. The taxpayer will be paying for it for decades. I would have rather seen the money spent elsewhere.

How so?

The bulk of the Edmonton's contribution will be paid for through a ticket tax on events in the new arena and through a CRL on the area around the new arena. This is a tax-base that didn't exist prior to the arena deal.

In fact, since the announcement of the new arena there has been 2.5b worth of new development slated for the area around the arena and more to come. This development is happening because of the new arena. It would not have occurred without it. We know this because the land the arena is built on was parking lots for decades and the development only chose to locate in the district after the arena was confirmed and knowing full well that they would have to pay extra through the CRL to be there. At the end of the day 'taxpayers' aren't paying for Edmonton's arena, rather users and specific taxpayers who by and large chose to be there are the ones paying.

But could they have gotten a better deal? Doubtful. The fact that the arena deal in Edmonton took ~4 years of intense haggling back and forth, veiled threats of moving the team, councilors dead-set against any public money being involved along with massive public opposition basically undermines any argument that Edmonton could have gotten a significantly better deal.

At the end of the day, Edmonton faced a choice: Make the deal and reap the rewards of the revitalization of a huge dead zone in their core including millions in new tax revenue or walk away from it all. Edmonton chose wisely IMO.

Calgary, OTOH, is in a totally different situation that Edmonton. Sure a new arena and stadium are overdue but there's no real argument to be made that building them will spur a boom of development, at least one that wouldn't have happened anyway. Calgary is already booming. In fact, even giving land away to build these things will likely cost the city millions in lost revenue from other potential high value uses for that land. The primary -perhaps only- beneficiaries of any new stadium/arena in Calgary will be the Flames ownership. It will be very interesting to see what the 'ask' is from King.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Socguy

How so?

The bulk of the Edmonton's contribution will be paid for through a ticket tax on events in the new arena and through a CRL on the area around the new arena. This is a tax-base that didn't exist prior to the arena deal.

In fact, since the announcement of the new arena there has been 2.5b worth of new development slated for the area around the arena and more to come. This development is happening because of the new arena. It would not have occurred without it. We know this because the land the arena is built on was parking lots for decades and the development only chose to locate in the district after the arena was confirmed and knowing full well that they would have to pay extra through the CRL to be there. At the end of the day 'taxpayers' aren't paying for Edmonton's arena, rather users and specific taxpayers who by and large chose to be there are the ones paying.

But could they have gotten a better deal? Doubtful. The fact that the arena deal in Edmonton took ~4 years of intense haggling back and forth, veiled threats of moving the team, councilors dead-set against any public money being involved along with massive public opposition basically undermines any argument that Edmonton could have gotten a significantly better deal.

At the end of the day, Edmonton faced a choice: Make the deal and reap the rewards of the revitalization of a huge dead zone in their core including millions in new tax revenue or walk away from it all. Edmonton chose wisely IMO.

Calgary, OTOH, is in a totally different situation that Edmonton. Sure a new arena and stadium are overdue but there's no real argument to be made that building them will spur a boom of development, at least one that wouldn't have happened anyway. Calgary is already booming. In fact, even giving land away to build these things will likely cost the city millions in lost revenue from other potential high value uses for that land. The primary -perhaps only- beneficiaries of any new stadium/arena in Calgary will be the Flames ownership. It will be very interesting to see what the 'ask' is from King.

Curious. Who is doing the adjacent development(s) (and thus will be gaining the profits)? The City, or is it the owner of the Oilers and/or someone related? Kind of like a Bronconier, no?

[speedog]

The 'ask' is from King - well, there has been that group that's been trying to get a field house built in Calgary that would've most likely had public monies going towards it. If the Flames build a spectacular field house and offer it up to the city as a part of a deal and maybe throw in some road re-alignments (if in the west side), would the city take a serious sniff. If it's north of Stampede ground (rail town?), if the deal offered is a field house and relocation of affected bus barns, again would the city consider it?

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Love the design but Katz bent them over. The taxpayer will be paying for it for decades. I would have rather seen the money spent elsewhere.

Billionaires tend to be good salespeople