New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Denscafon]

The big issue is that the promenade district is what connects the other 2 districts together to become an actual neighborhood. Having an arena right in the middle completely segregates the 2 other districts. The promenade district is supposed to be a "pedestrian focused" area and a sports complex would not do the same thing.

[Fuzz]

Rerouting Bow and putting the stadium on the west "Pumphouse precinct" seams to make a lot more sense to me. Then anyone coming for downtown walks through the commercial district. The only drawback is not having direct LRT access, but it would also force everyone to walk pas the shops.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Rerouting Bow and putting the stadium on the west "Pumphouse precinct" seams to make a lot more sense to me. Then anyone coming for downtown walks through the commercial district. The only drawback is not having direct LRT access, but it would also force everyone to walk pas the shops.

I think this may be the way to go. Creosote contamination is concentrated in that area, so it might make more sense to place the stadium complex there as residential remediation costs will likely be higher.

The trade-off is a longer walk from the stadium to LRT and occupying a large section of riverfront with a monolithic complex.

[monocle]

A big thanks to everyone with their insights. The overlays are especially useful to my understanding of this, granted I'm a rank amateur in planning issues.

I'd bet money that the final product will incorporate Bow trail being fixed...whether it is a re-route through the project (like Vancouver) or whatever else (maybe demo all of the spaghetti and try again, with more river front developable land as the end result?)

Again, thanks guys, really appreciate the nuance.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

What semi regular event draws more than 30,000 people? When was the last time the stamps sold out a game? You'd have a similar situation to what you see in BC, a whole lot of empty seats.

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Stamps don't sell out because they play in a dump and it's cold out and Calgarians like me are wusses

Since 1998 the Stamps have averaged close to or over 30 000 every year. Any game you go to most of the people are sitting between the 20 yard lines or goal lines at most, especially the higher you go. Depending on how the seating is set up (bowl seating for example, that surroudns the entire field) I would bet you draw way fewer people as the perception of those end zone seats is less desireable. I still say you need to look at a capacity of closer to 40 than 30, and the city has proven recently that it can support that.

https://stats.cfldb.ca/team/calgary-stampeders/

[Fuzz]

Druh's thoughts.....
http://www.calgary.ca/councillors/ward-7/Pages/News/Blog----Is-CalgaryNEXT-a-good-idea.aspx

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Rerouting Bow and putting the stadium on the west "Pumphouse precinct" seams to make a lot more sense to me. Then anyone coming for downtown walks through the commercial district. The only drawback is not having direct LRT access, but it would also force everyone to walk pas the shops.

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I think this may be the way to go. Creosote contamination is concentrated in that area, so it might make more sense to place the stadium complex there as residential remediation costs will likely be higher.

The trade-off is a longer walk from the stadium to LRT and occupying a large section of riverfront with a monolithic complex.

I like this option as well personally .. The disconnect from having the complex in the Promenade area combined with leaving Bow Tr as is would make this project a fail.

If there is any public money going towards this, I'd be most satisfied if it's going to do the area properly including re-routing Bow Trail, making the WV flow naturally and well connected, and even fixing Crowchild/Bow Tr (might as well go big). While it is a downside to have some waterfront occupied by this complex (which would be a quiet area when events aren't there) it's better to have it on the outside of the core (there isn't much west of there anyway) rather than the middle. They could still do some nice riverfront work that connects it to the bike paths going west.

[Fuzz]

I find it rather sneaky how they say combining these facilities would optimize costs, yet they still ask for the full $200 million the city has said a field house would cost, built on its own. Shouldn't some of the savings go towards reducing the field house ask?

[Surrealplaces]

Yup, it should be a no-brainer that the owners would backstop the financing upfront for the ticket tax.

Originally Posted by Wooster

Ticket Tax

It was a massive mistake in my opinion to not suggest the owners were going to backstop the loan for the ticket tax. I suppose we would assume the City would finance the ticket tax. I believe the user pay component is sound, it should absolutely be backstopped by the owners, not the City. If it is planned to be backstopped by the owners, really bad not to say that today with utmost clarity.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I find it rather sneaky how they say combining these facilities would optimize costs, yet they still ask for the full $200 million the city has said a field house would cost, built on its own. Shouldn't some of the savings go towards reducing the field house ask?

Lipstick on a Pig... The reality is North American professional sport is built on a model that requires tax dollars to operate in any market. Given that the costs of venues are similar regardless of the size of the city, smaller market teams are always going to be challenged. We are kidding ourselves if we think an agreement can be reached on a new arena project without the city and province stepping forward in some form. A "no tax dollars" approach will ultimately lead to the Flames exiting Calgary. The real question is how to sell a tax contribution politically, and what is the real taxpayer minimum cost.

The ticket tax is probably the best funding suggestion here. It is user pay, and will indirectly be taking money that otherwise could support higher ticket prices and therefore profitability for the owners.

[s4.audios]

I hope that design changes a lot, that thing is 🞵🞵🞵🞵 ugly... then again so was the first conceptual drawings of Rogers Place.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ I don't think who loans the money for the ticket tax will be a problem. More of a who cares, lets move on to the real points of contention in the give and take on this. The loan is backstopped by a direct revenue source so it will approach government interest rates even if done on a purely commercial basis.

In the end it is probably better to bundle it with the CRL and use it to revenue smooth the loans so that the CRL doesn't accumulate additional debt beyond the original capital spend based on the development lag, but that doesn't mean it has to be.

641,223 fans a year if you add current Rexall Place numbers (which mind you are way higher than the Saddledome's numbers), and current Stampeders attendance. A $20 ticket tax would cover a 30 year amortization.

[Bokimon]

I did a quick research at the ownership and its safe to say their combined net worth can probably finance a couple of these projects. Two of them being founder/executives of CNRL it leads me to believe that the Flames/Stampeders (who btw are under the same ownership group) I believe it seems, our main sports teams are owned and run by CNRL. Yeah its ridiculous statement but so is when the owners of our beloved teams are
out of touch dinosaurs who only care about money. Their archaic approach to catering for a thriving 21st city with a booming young entrepreneurial population shows in their lack of quality or foresight of their presentation even for a conceptual design. Lazy IMO.
Compare it to the CMLC who have youth and energy fueling ideas of pure awesomeness that resonates so very well with our current multifaceted demographics of the city. It's like night and day! Their presentations on the EV was so comprehensive, it certainly stirred up some good blood, good vibe and good consensus support!
If the Flames/Stamps ownerships had some younger blood in it, this project would come out much much different. Let me know if there is a opening in the future!

These rich folks over the past what 8 years were likely not interested in doing actual research work but instead played around to improving their golf handicaps and stock dividends. I wouldn't be surprised if this was only conjured up over the last month lol!
This project better be consulted with the city and the citizens alike during its detailed design stage or so help me god, I hope the city crucifies this if they dare to go into DP as it is. At least I'd be happy knowing the city is taking ownership funds thru their permit fees and what not.

Perhaps these folks need an email spamming with this thread linked so they can at least start opening their eyes a bit and put down their monocles. For starters they should visit LA, Edmonton, San Diego, even Seattle! Those cities have their entertainment and sporting DISTRICTS done right where it is a true destination for live, work, and play for not just the immediate area, but for the entire city as well with efficient amenities and good infrastructure support.

Awesome feedback folks, I agree with majority of the pointers that has been posted. I believe that SSP nerdlings here are the armchair building /urban planners and design review panel that the actual city planning commission/UDRP only dreams of!
Cut the greed and start giving back to the community for god's sake! Real philanthropists do not mooch on public money for important vision making projects.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by nick.flood

A quick set of the facility on the Railtown lands. Tight but not impossible.

So how is this for an idea. Move the bus barns to the West Village, and build the stadium where they currently sit.

I have had several Calgary Transit employees tell me the City will never relocate the Victoria Park bus barns, because to build a new one on the edge of the city would cost millions every year in unnecessary salary to drivers who are dead-heading. This issue is resolved by locating the barns still very central on already city owned land.

Would the remediation cost of the west lands go down significantly if we were just putting bus barns on it (not much different than the current car dealerships)?

The Calgary Stampede can still proceed forward with their redevelopment vision, knowing they still have a large anchor with the Flames. The current proposal seems to be jeopardizing that vision:
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...too-big-for-stampede-park-to-accommodate

The proximity of the new Arena would benefit further redevelopment of our already large investment in East Village, and may spur more development in Victoria Park.

Downside is, much more challenging vehicular access, but no different really than the current Saddledome.

[izend]

"Calgary’s city council secretly approved the $36.9-million purchase of contaminated land — now being pitched as part of the site for a new downtown arena and stadium complex — despite expert reports that warned the extent of the pollution and potential cleanup costs needed further investigation."

Can't believe the city throw away $37 million to buy this worthless land.

[Fuzz]

^
If they are going to move the bus barns, they should move them to Firepark, not West Village. I hear Firepark is an awesome connected area close to the core, ripe for alternative uses.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Bokimon

I did a quick research at the ownership and its safe to say their combined net worth can probably finance a couple of these projects. Two of them being founder/executives of CNRL it leads me to believe that the Flames/Stampeders (who btw are under the same ownership group) I believe it seems, our main sports teams are owned and run by CNRL. Yeah its ridiculous statement but so is when the owners of our beloved teams are
out of touch dinosaurs who only care about money. Their archaic approach to catering for a thriving 21st city with a booming young entrepreneurial population shows in their lack of quality or foresight of their presentation even for a conceptual design. Lazy IMO.
Compare it to the CMLC who have youth and energy fueling ideas of pure awesomeness that resonates so very well with our current multifaceted demographics of the city. It's like night and day! Their presentations on the EV was so comprehensive, it certainly stirred up some good blood, good vibe and good consensus support!
If the Flames/Stamps ownerships had some younger blood in it, this project would come out much much different. Let me know if there is a opening in the future!

These rich folks over the past what 8 years were likely not interested in doing actual research work but instead played around to improving their golf handicaps and stock dividends. I wouldn't be surprised if this was only conjured up over the last month lol!
This project better be consulted with the city and the citizens alike during its detailed design stage or so help me god, I hope the city crucifies this if they dare to go into DP as it is. At least I'd be happy knowing the city is taking ownership funds thru their permit fees and what not.

Perhaps these folks need an email spamming with this thread linked so they can at least start opening their eyes a bit and put down their monocles. For starters they should visit LA, Edmonton, San Diego, even Seattle! Those cities have their entertainment and sporting DISTRICTS done right where it is a true destination for live, work, and play for not just the immediate area, but for the entire city as well with efficient amenities and good infrastructure support.

Awesome feedback folks, I agree with majority of the pointers that has been posted. I believe that SSP nerdlings here are the armchair building /urban planners and design review panel that the actual city planning commission/UDRP only dreams of!
Cut the greed and start giving back to the community for god's sake! Real philanthropists do not mooch on public money for important vision making projects.

What a terrible post this is. This simplistic nonsense adds nothing to the conversation and detracts from the discussion we are having.

[MalcolmTucker]

I bet those greedy suburbanites in the SE and North have a net-worth much higher than the cost of the Green Line LRT. Many if not most of the households are millionaires!

By not pooling their money and building this asset they are just out of touch dinosaurs who only care about money.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Me&You

Everyone involved.

A better designed, modern facility with a more spacious concourse and more amenities is better for the fans that attend the games and the ownership group. What's hard to understand about that?

I suppose you want more seats to make it more "accessible" to more fans? I'm sure if a proper business case could be made, that would be the case. I have no doubt that the ownership / operating group (and all of those involved in spec'ing every new arena in the last 20 or so years) have looked at all of the numbers in every possible way and all came to the same conclusion; the ideal capacity for an arena is 18-19k. Any capacity larger than that requires even more amenities to accommodate more people that are filling lower value seats. Not sure where this isn't making sense...

Let's be clear. A new stadium of the same size is better for the owners.

Current annual operating income for the owners: $23 M.
Future operating income with more boxes: I'm not even going to guess, but the owners must think the difference in revenue is worth a one time $200M payment. The Leafs profit $71M/year, but benefit from a much bigger market, so who knows. BTW, the ACC has 152 luxury seats compared the the Dome's 72. The Staples Ctr has 160. Edmonton will have 144.

Would the new stadium be better for the fans? The two biggest factors that determine the enjoyment fans will get are how often they go (determined by price and ticket scarcity) and whether the team wins. The next factor after that is probably how easy or difficult it is to get to. Shorter bathroom lineups and a more spacious concourse are hardly worth hundreds of millions.

This new deal increases the cost to fans (reduction to general seating capacity, more boxes, presumably more expensive parking, and ticket "tax"), has only a marginal improvement in access to transit and probably worse vehicle/parking access, and will have zero effect on the team itself (obviously). For fans, this is an expensive "nice-to-have". We should not make decisions based on people who share the following opinions:

"The government should buy us a $500M new stadium seeing as they're spending all that money (<$10M) on bike lanes anyway."
"Ticket tax?! There goes the government trying to get my money in another way!"
"If you combined all the charitable donations the Flames Foundation and the owners have made over the years, they could have funded a new NHL rink."
"Nothing good is easy but doing nothing is really easy." (or any such idiotic idiom)
"We’re not going to let the dollar signs get in the way of us doing nothing."
"Edmonton got theirs."
"Sunalta LRT was dumb luck."


Are there real public benefits? Certainly, but the "vision" I see presented is one that benefits the owners, provides a qualitative benefit to fans at a high cost, and is not worth half a billion public dollars (not counting creosote clean up, connectivity, etc) considering it comes spectacularly short of solving the problems related to that parcel of land. The trouble is that whoever came up with this plan is about 30 years behind contemporary urban planning and sociology, and (most unforgivable of all) ignorant to decades of west village consultation and planning. If taxpayers were playing less of the bill, I'd probably be more lenient in my criticisms. Hell, if they pay for the whole thing, they can put it in Firepark for all I care.

The public would probably get more benefit from renovating Foothills Athletic Park ($20M), North Glenmore ($20M), and spending $300-400M realigning roads and parkspaces and a CRL in the West Village so that the entire parcel could be developed as taxable assets.

Could something be worked out? Yes, but this isn't it.

Originally Posted by monocle

A big thanks to everyone with their insights. The overlays are especially useful to my understanding of this, granted I'm a rank amateur in planning issues.

I'd bet money that the final product will incorporate Bow trail being fixed...whether it is a re-route through the project (like Vancouver) or whatever else (maybe demo all of the spaghetti and try again, with more river front developable land as the end result?)

Again, thanks guys, really appreciate the nuance.

I'd like to thank everyone too. This is the sort of topic that has me glued to SSP, a beacon of rational discourse in an ocean of apathy (ie. the real world).

[craner]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

After thinking about it, I'm hopeful this is just a rough idea they have to get the conversation started and they are open to getting a real design process started. Basically, this is what we want to do, but have no idea if it is the best way to do it. They had to release something publicly at this point.

As for the money, I'd hope this is their starting point, not their final goal. Ask big, settle for much less.

I think you've pretty much nailed it here Fuzz - this is a "concept" of a idea.
If the desire is to relocate, bury, stack Bow Trail (as one example) then that can still be looked at and accommodated. Judging by the renders the actual "design" of the complex has not yet begun.
Very, very, very, very early days.