New Downtown Calgary Arena

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

That really didn't work out well for them in the public, his one interview with Jim Gray on the Eyeopener was pretty brutal.

I heard that interview. Bettman was a complete and absolute —. Maybe it was a perverse attempt at damage control by the Flames -- showing that by NHL standards King isn't really that much of an —.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by McMurph

I heard that interview. Bettman was a complete and absolute —. Maybe it was a perverse attempt at damage control by the Flames -- showing that by NHL standards King isn't really that much of an —.

That would give them a lot of super-villian like insight into manipulating the public in a very round-about way. I think it's one of those times where we should never automatically attribute something to malice that can easily be explained with ignorance.

That interview was a PR disaster

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by MasterG

...That interview was a PR disaster

No doubt! Lets see if I can sum it up the relevant bit for those that never heard it:

Bettman: Blah blah blah blah and soon the Flames will soon be playing in the oldest arena in the NHL. (Implication: unprofitable.)

CBC: So how much does the franchise make at the Saddledome?

Bettman: I can't discuss team finances.

CBC: But you were just making the argument that...

Bettman: Don't interrupt me.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by McMurph

I heard that interview. Bettman was a complete and absolute —. Maybe it was a perverse attempt at damage control by the Flames -- showing that by NHL standards King isn't really that much of an —.

The old "put out out an oil fire with dynamite" approach.

[The Fisher Account]

It's time for new leadership on this project:

• Video Link

[Halcyon]

"Kael-gree-yans"

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

It's time for new leadership on this project:

• Video Link

Yeah that was... Interesting... Nothing like using kids in the video to guilt us into building it.

So KK says Calgary tax payers will only have to pay for the field house and that the Flames ownership will be covering 50% of the cost? Not sure how that adds up. Are they counting on the Feds chipping in now too? Or are they just not counting the upfront cost of the CRL and the loss of the tax base size?

Oh but I forgot there will be a "cool" shuttle service to bring in people parking DT on game nights! Shut up and take my money!

[MalcolmTucker]

Probably acting as if the CRL is found money. The city acting as if it is not breaks the myth of the East Village however.

[Socguy]

Answered zero questions.

-CRL is still the wrong mechanism for funding this complex.
-How is CSE going to fund 50% of this thing? 50% of the total cost to the city or one specific part? Highly misleading statement on KK's part.
-West village doesn't need a catalyst, it's been held back by the contamination and bad road design. Once the CMLC is done with East Village, they will turn their sights to the West. Plunking this complex in the middle will simply be an obstacle to redevelopment.
-The fieldhouse is unfunded because there's no budget. There's no budget because the money needs to go to top priorities like transportation, ie. the green line.
-Calgary already has a sport and entertainment district. It's called the stampede. Keep these things contained in one location.

In a perfect world, we could afford to build cool new arena projects every year. But we live in a world where public budgets are tight and it makes very little sense to duplicate the functional facilities we already have, when the primary beneficiaries would be wealthy private interests.

[bt04ku]

They consider the CRL only paid by businesses/residences within the area, therefore not affecting other taxpayers.

Which could be good if it means the Flames will be on the hook for any shortfalls in the CRL funding portion but we all know that will never be the case.



EDIT: As somebody on CP pointed out, look what logo made it's way into the renders

[MalcolmTucker]

Please don't conflate wealth with profit.

Perhaps the way to square the circle would be for the CRL to receive as land rent excess facility revenue. Of course, there would be the problem of profit from direct Flames activities counting towards the NHL collective bargaining agreement. Possibly you could have a variable Flames only ticket tax equal to a percentage of improved 'take' per guest. That would require the Flames opening the books though.

[craner]

So reading these articles about BMO Cetre expansion and resulting demo of the Corral - one thing made me go Hmmmm.

Corral completed 1950, replaced by Saddledome 1983, total 33 year span.
Saddledome completed 1983, currently 2016 so 33 year span.
Perhaps it is time to replace it.

That said I still think McMahon is the much more pressing need, just not with an indoor fieldhouse.
I don't mind the West Village location, just need to see more development of the plan.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by craner

So reading these articles about BMO Cetre expansion and resulting demo of the Corral - one thing made me go Hmmmm.

Corral completed 1950, replaced by Saddledome 1983, total 33 year span.
Saddledome completed 1983, currently 2016 so 33 year span.
Perhaps it is time to replace it.

Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, given that:
- Corral seats only 6475 (whether or not it was outdated, Flames needed more seating than that)
- It has continued operations since 1983, so giving it a mere 33-year lifespan is not entirely accurate -- though obviously, the nature of the events it has hosted changed quite a bit since the Saddledome was constructed!

[Innersoul1]

Some observations from the clip:

-Cool shuttle service Since when are buses cool? I don't get it, if Sunalta Station is attached to the building isn't that the shuttle service?

-If you look at 2:05 of the clip it seems to suggest that Bow Trail is buried, however, in the rendering that follow it's not. Wonder what the vision is.

-The more I look at this I hate the idea of the mixed field house stadium concept. I mean, I really like the idea that the building will be used beyond the few CFL games but they really need to execute on this. The renderings still show a really small seating area that doesn't seem fantastic for fans. Such a shame given what Saskatchewan is getting.

[MalcolmTucker]

~30,000 for football, much less for track and field. Every metre added to the width of the roof makes it more expensive unfortunately.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Please don't conflate wealth with profit.

Perhaps the way to square the circle would be for the CRL to receive as land rent excess facility revenue. Of course, there would be the problem of profit from direct Flames activities counting towards the NHL collective bargaining agreement. Possibly you could have a variable Flames only ticket tax equal to a percentage of improved 'take' per guest. That would require the Flames opening the books though.

At the end of the day, I think the only path forward that makes sense for the city to invest these kinds of funds into a commercial stadium project mainly for professional sports use is to coerce the team owners into doing something that likely the NHL does not want to set a precedent for (whether through public ownership, profit sharing, open the books transparency, etc.) - and that will likely be the main point of contention.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

-The more I look at this I hate the idea of the mixed field house stadium concept. I mean, I really like the idea that the building will be used beyond the few CFL games but they really need to execute on this. The renderings still show a really small seating area that doesn't seem fantastic for fans. Such a shame given what Saskatchewan is getting.

I like the concept of getting more than occasional use out of a stadium, but the execution is critical. It's going to be a massive challenge for whomever designs this thing to ensure that it has the feel of a professional venue rather than an oversized Jack Simpson gym.

[hulkrogan]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I like the concept of getting more than occasional use out of a stadium, but the execution is critical. It's going to be a massive challenge for whomever designs this thing to ensure that it has the feel of a professional venue rather than an oversized Jack Simpson gym.

Considering every indoor multipurpose stadium ever built in the history of mankind has sucked, I don't have much faith in this group being the one to pull it off given the track record so far.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Considering every indoor multipurpose stadium ever built in the history of mankind has sucked, I don't have much faith in this group being the one to pull it off given the track record so far.

I dunno, the Roman Coliseum was pretty sweet. They had everything from Gladiator matches to boat battles.

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I like the concept of getting more than occasional use out of a stadium, but the execution is critical. It's going to be a massive challenge for whomever designs this thing to ensure that it has the feel of a professional venue rather than an oversized Jack Simpson gym.

Spot on with this. There are so many design challenges that will come into play especially making the seats comfortable and not have them feel tacked on. it would be cool of they went with a clear roof.

• Video Link

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Considering every indoor multipurpose stadium ever built in the history of mankind has sucked, I don't have much faith in this group being the one to pull it off given the track record so far.

It has massive potential to be — LOL. I guess it depend on how much they are willing to pour into it.