New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Fuzz]

I the city is reclaiming for themselves, they can choose the slower reclamation option, they can develop areas of it in phases, etc to spread costs over a longer period. If they have to basically excavate the entire area, I'm not sure why they wouldn't work a Bow realignment into it. Depending on how much they need to excavate for reclamation, it may evn make financial sense to bury it.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

Why are you forcing hot air down in an ice rink?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

Why are you forcing hot air down in an ice rink?

Same reason you heat ice rinks in the first place. So it is comfortable for the thousands who pay to watch. Ice is cooled from below, not by cold air over top.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Same reason you heat ice rinks in the first place. So it is comfortable for the thousands who pay to watch. Ice is cooled from below, not by cold air over top.

Thanks Captain Obvious, but the ice is kept at about -5 and the stands at +10. I doubt it takes much heat to keep the stands at +10 with 20,000 people in the rink. +20 in the concourse yes. Ice refrigeration produces a continuously large amount of heat and this heat can be utilized directly to space heating and supply air heating, pre-heating of hot water for ice resurfacing and showers.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

Thanks Captain Obvious, but the ice is kept at about -5 and the stands at +10. I doubt it takes much heat to keep the stands at +10 with 20,000 people in the rink. +20 in the concourse yes. Ice refrigeration produces a continuously large amount of heat and this heat can be utilized directly to space heating and supply air heating, pre-heating of hot water for ice resurfacing and showers.

It's not just heat, you need to cycle the air. 20+ people create a ton of moisture and CO2. There's large doors opening and closing, and different events requiring different conditions. There's even a thing called air stratification designers must take into account. By reducing the volume of air you need to continually manage, you save heaps of money.

If there's any HVAC techs out there, perhaps they can enlighten us further...

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

Given the cost estimate and the shoddy plans announced, they should look to put this back in Stampede Park. This whole process has left me with zero confidence that the Flames ownership have the capability or aptitude to pull off a successful, well integrated urban stadium design / arena district. This thing will be a blight anywhere it moves, might as well take up a few more parking lots in the current wasteland of Stampede Park.

Does anyone know the details of how the Stampede operates with regards to the City? They have had a long and unusual history for a private foundation, including public funding, expropriation powers and a ton of implicit benefits the city provides them.

Anyone know the specifics on what the current relationship is like? Perhaps the City can play matchmaker and get them to coordinate.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Given the cost estimate and the shoddy plans announced, they should look to put this back in Stampede Park. This whole process has left me with zero confidence that the Flames ownership have the capability or aptitude to pull off a successful, well integrated urban stadium design / arena district. This thing will be a blight anywhere it moves, might as well take up a few more parking lots in the current wasteland of Stampede Park.

Does anyone know the details of how the Stampede operates with regards to the City? They have had a long and unusual history for a private foundation, including public funding, expropriation powers and a ton of implicit benefits the city provides them.

Anyone know the specifics on what the current relationship is like? Perhaps the City can play matchmaker and get them to coordinate.

You do realize the 10 day event is held on the wasteland parking lot, build an arena on the parking lot and where will the 10 day event go?

The dtampede operates as a separate society that is independent from the City, however at least one councillor plus the mayor have exoficio status on the stampede board. The stampede does not pay property tax on the stampede lands.

Also the Saddledome is separate from the stampede board. The city owns and operates the Saddledome with a the operations subcontracted to CSEC.

Stampede and CSEC will never cooperate on a new arena for the simple fact both organizations want the same entertainment district. There is only enough demand in Calgary for one entertainment district.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by Socguy

It's not just heat, you need to cycle the air. 20+ people create a ton of moisture and CO2. There's large doors opening and closing, and different events requiring different conditions. There's even a thing called air stratification designers must take into account. By reducing the volume of air you need to continually manage, you save heaps of money.

If there's any HVAC techs out there, perhaps they can enlighten us further...

Also covered already.

[Cage]

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.

City Administration has to be very careful with the debate about West Village ARP vs CalgaryNext. Just about all the infrastructure improvements for Calgary Next will be required under West Village ARP. The other problem with the City's cost estimate is that West Village ARP costs need to have inflation factored in because the redevelopment will not occur for another 10+ years.

City Administration might not be able to bifurcate the debate between CalgaryNext vs West Village ARP. The debate could become is there any cost effective solution to redevelopment and remediation.

Another problem for city administration, their cheaper environmental option has less success rate than the expensive option. The cheaper option is similar to fertilizer and gas station remediation. At some fertilizer and gas station sites, remediation does not take hold and the expensive option has to be completed at the end of the cheaper option. Finally, true environmentalists don't approve of the cheaper option, which was basically developed and implemented at behest of bean counters and Corp executives. From a provincial political perspective, the NDP aligns more with the environmental movement and the previous PC govt alligned with the corporate executives. It is naive to expect that environmental laws will remain static with the govt of the day. It is entirely possible the cheaper option may get tossed out.

[Cage]

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.

Rail town option is out because the city put the Railtown lands into the East Village CRL. If you put the arena and/or stadium onto the Railtown lands, the East Village CRL cannot recover its infrastructure costs. Also there is no CRL for the Arena and/or Stadium.

A distant second problem for the CRL lands, it would blow up the Stampede's plans for an entertainment district.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Cage

You do realize the 10 day event is held on the wasteland parking lot, build an arena on the parking lot and where will the 10 day event go?

The dtampede operates as a separate society that is independent from the City, however at least one councillor plus the mayor have exoficio status on the stampede board. The stampede does not pay property tax on the stampede lands.

Also the Saddledome is separate from the stampede board. The city owns and operates the Saddledome with a the operations subcontracted to CSEC.

Stampede and CSEC will never cooperate on a new arena for the simple fact both organizations want the same entertainment district. There is only enough demand in Calgary for one entertainment district.

Independent nonshare capital organizations that are tax exempt are pretty easy to bring around. They derive all their power from the pleasure of their parent governments. Edmonton brought Northlands into compliance and that was with northlands receiving revenue from rexall far more than the stampede does from the dome.

[craner]

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

Not that I'm a fan of the funding scheme for NEXT or trying to defend CSEG but have they actually ever said they are asking the City to upfront the Ticket Surcharge $$ ?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by craner

Not that I'm a fan of the funding scheme for NEXT or trying to defend CSEG but have they actually ever said they are asking the City to upfront the Ticket Surcharge $$ ?

The ticket surcharge cannot be applied to arena and stadium tickets until the new places are built, however the money to build the facilities is required before and during construction.

Think of it as Yu want to build a new house but need basement suite rental income to help pay the mortgage. Who is going to front you the money to build the house?

[craner]

^I know King referred to "private lenders"when asked that very question.

[Socguy]

http://www.metronews.ca/views/calgary/ur...-choice-for-calgary-sports-megaplex.html

Metro agrees, Stampede is a better site for an arena.

[sammyd]

Originally Posted by Socguy

http://www.metronews.ca/views/calgary/ur...-choice-for-calgary-sports-megaplex.html

Metro agrees, Stampede is a better site for an arena.

I liked the quote about how on Google Earth there is a lot of land on Stampede Park to fill a new arena.

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by sammyd

I liked the quote about how on Google Earth there is a lot of land on Stampede Park to fill a new arena.

Journalism at it's finest.

Top to bottom that's a horrible article. Yes the river interface is poor but we have all established that some re-alignment of Bow Trail would have to take place. Additionally, has the writer been to Sunalta Station?

[The Fisher Account]

I don't see a lot mentioned about how the Saddledome flooded in 2013 and that that's a concern of building on the Stampede grounds by the CSEC

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

I don't see a lot mentioned about how the Saddledome flooded in 2013 and that that's a concern of building on the Stampede grounds by the CSEC

I don't see that as a concern. The city has spent tons of money to harden the downtown/east village against floods. The Province is undertaking flood mitigation measures out in springbank. Any risk that remains could be handled by a building designed to withstand a once in 100y flood. Since the city would likely own the building, they flames bear little to no cleanup risk.

As far as I'm concerned, the real concern of CSEC is that IF a new arena goes up and IF it's on or near stampede grounds, ownership misses out on the huge real estate payday that they're after. Besides, if they were really concerned about floods, why would they propose West Village? If an epic flood came again it's conceivable that it could get them there too.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by Socguy

I don't see that as a concern. The city has spent tons of money to harden the downtown/east village against floods. The Province is undertaking flood mitigation measures out in springbank. Any risk that remains could be handled by a building designed to withstand a once in 100y flood. Since the city would likely own the building, they flames bear little to no cleanup risk.

As far as I'm concerned, the real concern of CSEC is that IF a new arena goes up and IF it's on or near stampede grounds, ownership misses out on the huge real estate payday that they're after. Besides, if they were really concerned about floods, why would they propose West Village? If an epic flood came again it's conceivable that it could get them there too.

Um, THIS isn't really a concern?!!



The WV is not in a floodplain and that was a selling feature of the CSEC proposal.

The Stampede grounds are, and I've heard a lot about flood mitigation plans but not a lot about shovels in the ground. I'd be wary about spending $1B without those pieces in place