New Downtown Calgary Arena - Page 165

O-tacular · #**3281** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 2:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by artvandelay

The report is full of holes and makes every assumption possible to inflate the cost of the Calgary Next project.

Not surprising though given what's leaked out the mayor's office. They seem to have an irrational dislike for this project.

Really? To me you seem like the irrational one if you don't consider the associated costs like infrastructure improvement and remediation. Even if the number was estimated slightly higher this would still be well over a billion dollars to do.

MalcolmTucker · #**3282** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 3:14 PM**

Can't you see the play here though? The city is now examining lower cost alternatives. Most alternatives now will look very affordable in comparison. The city report had a wonderful bit on how much very extensive upgrades to McMahon would cost even. A new modern arena plus extensive renos to McMahon plus the original field house will end up cheaper.

Now the project can evolve into a win on every side. Everyone can have a cake and eat it too. All I can say is yum!

Skyisnolimit · #**3283** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 3:19 PM**

Why not just build the 2 separate arena 450 million Stadium 350 million you get to great structures for a reasonable price. ? Renovating Saddledome and McMahon makes no sense

People.talking · #**3284** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyisnolimit

Why not just build the 2 separate arena 450 million Stadium 350 million you get to great structures for a reasonable price. ? Renovating Saddledome and McMahon makes no sense

I agree with this

odogfo · #**3285** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reesonov

Yikes, this has turned into a boondoggle.

If Railtown becomes plan B, I wonder if there is an opportunity right now for integration with a Green line station? Might be a silver lining at least.

Just looking at Railtown on google, that seems like the ideal location. It has roughly the same footprint as the west village and looks like it could accommodate both arena and stadium. It's close to condos, the new national music center, the east village, it's no further away from the c-train than it currently is and the new green line could be incorporated, there's existing parking AND everyone can still go to cowboys after the game! haha

craner · #**3286** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Can't you see the play here though? The city is now examining lower cost alternatives. Most alternatives now will look very affordable in comparison. The city report had a wonderful bit on how much very extensive upgrades to McMahon would cost even. A new modern arena plus extensive renos to McMahon plus the original field house will end up cheaper.

Now the project can evolve into a win on every side. Everyone can have a cake and eat it too. All I can say is yum!

Yep - totally agree.

And the Railtown location sure seems ideal in terms current & future C-Train access, proximity to related facilities (BMO Centre), walkable from corporate downtown, and they could develop an entertainment district in conjunction with the Stampede's plans.
Seems perfect.

H.E.Pennypacker · #**3287** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

Yep - totally agree.

And the Railtown location sure seems ideal in terms current & future C-Train access, proximity to related facilities (BMO Centre), walkable from corporate downtown, and they could develop an entertainment district in conjunction with the Stampede's plans.
Seems perfect.

I'm actually really happy this has played out like this .. Definitely opens up Railtown as an option again which is what I think is the best location.

With the Green Line now looking likely that it'll move forward this opens up a great opportunity to redevelop that Railtown site for the new arena. If the City is to contribute any money towards this project, incorporating a new LRT station into the plans is more justifiable (not that it should be much public dollars).

suburbia · #**3288** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

But the roof shape and support strength are issues.

How are they an issue for hockey?

O-tacular · #**3289** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 9:15 PM**

Listened to an interview with Ken King from this morning on the Fan 960 and he said he doesn't think the report has killed the West Village proposal.

At one point he admitted almost under his breath that the Plan B option might be ok afterall. But it wouldn't be as grand as they had envisioned.

You Need A Thneed · #**3290** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Listened to an interview with Ken King from this morning on the Fan 960 and he said he doesn't think the report has killed the West Village proposal.

At one point he admitted almost under his breath that the Plan B option might be ok afterall. But it wouldn't be as grand as they had envisioned.

The only ways that the WV CalgaryNEXT proposal isn't killed, is if the Flames either want to put in a whole lot more money, AND don't require CRL money; OR they would have to buy the land themselves and pay property tax on the land (which would make the CRL actually feasible).

In all honesty, those things might be required to build anywhere.

Socguy · #**3291** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

But the roof shape and support strength are issues....

Not an issue for a hockey team, only for a handful of big concerts which even Ken King has already admitted is not a sufficient reason to build a new arena. The offsetting benifit is that the unique roof shape allows cheaper operation of the facility since it eliminates a ton of empty space that otherwise needs to be heated.

The Saddledome seats 19,289 compared to 18,641 for hockey in the new arena up in Edmonton. Which seems to be the trend among new arenas: seat fewer people but with more luxury boxes. In practical terms, if you're a hockey fan and are not being sponsored by a company a new arena means that not only will you have to pay more for your seat, there will be less seats to go around.

I understand that this is a construction forum and everybody gets excited by new buildings, but it's the cities best option to just stick with the Saddledome. It's already in the best location and it serves its function well enough and will continue to do so for decades to come. The only people who derive substantial benefit from building a new arena are the Flames ownership.

You Need A Thneed · #**3292** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socguy

The offsetting benifit is that the unique roof shape allows cheaper operation of the facility since it eliminates a ton of empty space that otherwise needs to be heated.

I've seen this thought before, but the thought is wrong. How much heating is required depends on the rate of heat loss - which is determined by surface area, and average R value - nothing to do with the volume of the building.

Innersoul1 · #**3293** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I've seen this thought before, but the thought is wrong. How much heating is required depends on the rate of heat loss - which is determined by surface area, and average R value - nothing to do with the volume of the building.

Thank you

technomad · #**3294** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 1:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

Yep - totally agree.

And the Railtown location sure seems ideal in terms current & future C-Train access, proximity to related facilities (BMO Centre), walkable from corporate downtown, and they could develop an entertainment district in conjunction with the Stampede's plans.
Seems perfect.

Pretty much all this

Railtown was always the best site IMO, west village was no better than firepark, maybe even a bit worse..

If 2026 Olympics is the target, that's really not that much time.. and development efforts will need to be focused, not the time to unlock whole new areas

Railtown has plenty of space for a stadium, and arena. Probably a half dozen towers too. And there's still ~10 whole blocks of empty land nearby, not including the stampede lands. With the slower economy, filling 10 blocks in 10 years could be a challenge.. even with focused efforts

But just think of how much better that part of the city would look and feel with stampede redeveloped and all of east village and vic park build out!

MichaelS · #**3295** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 2:56 PM**

So does anyone even know if Remington wants an arena on their lands? Or is open to selling it and not doing their planned mixed use project there?

suburbia · #**3296** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 4:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelS

So does anyone even know if Remington wants an arena on their lands? Or is open to selling it and not doing their planned mixed use project there?

It is not going to happen there. The thoughts about that are half baked given there are other developments already on-going on that location, and the opportunity cost for giving that up is substantial. The project will instead need to go on what is already city/stampede land OR on brownfield where the owner is not looking for other development.

odogfo · #**3297** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I've seen this thought before, but the thought is wrong. How much heating is required depends on the rate of heat loss - which is determined by surface area, and average R value - nothing to do with the volume of the building.

The volume does have an effect because it affects the air changes. With an increased volume you will need to use more energy to perform the air change.

simster3 · #**3298** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 9:12 PM**

Wouldn't the city be on the hook for the majority of the upgrades to the area no what what developement goes in there? I understand that they will have better cost recovery with different developements, but they are still going to have to pay for the remediation, realignment of Bow Tr. and other infrastructure upgrades. I hope they decide to do the remediation regardless of what happens to the area. I just see this report as the city's counter proposal and a way to say to the Flames to step it up a notch.

suburbia · #**3299** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 10:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by simster3

Wouldn't the city be on the hook for the majority of the upgrades to the area no what what developement goes in there? I understand that they will have better cost recovery with different developements, but they are still going to have to pay for the remediation, realignment of Bow Tr. and other infrastructure upgrades. I hope they decide to do the remediation regardless of what happens to the area. I just see this report as the city's counter proposal and a way to say to the Flames to step it up a notch.

I don't think the city really has to re-align Bow Tr if the complex isn't going in. That is their option, and their preference from the area development plan is different from what the Next would require. Some elements, yes, they'd have to do anyway, but anything other than Next going in would generate property tax, so massive opportunity cost. The other piece that they needed to add in is the cost of financing the all elements that directly or indirectly come back to the city. As an example, the owners are saying $250M will come from a ticket surcharge, however, that money is required up front, so they want the city to provide the money without interest. City doesn't have billions sitting around, so they would have to finance that, and all the other costs. The cresote piece is smallish in the grand scheme.

If all this is about hockey, then the Saddledome is fine. If it is about being able to host events for bigger profits, then a new stadium/arena is required. The owners talk about it as if it is for hockey, but it is actually the latter.

suburbia · #**3300** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 10:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by odogfo

The volume does have an effect because it affects the air changes. With an increased volume you will need to use more energy to perform the air change.

Absolutely. And a large volume that has a larger vertical component also has implications, as the hotter air moves up, which either means you actively push it down continuously, or have to heat the space to a higher mean temperature so that fans and surface level is comfortable.