New Downtown Calgary Arena - Page 172

Socguy · #**3421** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

What I loved best was that Ken King basically said that the Flames didn't want to own the arena because it is a depreciating asset and they didn't want the liability. What makes them think that the public should?

No kidding. Who wants to have to pay property taxes on that much land?

craner · #**3422** Posted **Jun 29, 2016, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by odogfo

This link to a neat video says the arena will bridge over bow trail.

http://calgarynext.com/img/2016_0626_Calgary_Next_Video_Final.mp4

Thanks for posting the video & report odogfo.
I noticed the video shows a US football field in CFL mode - hopefully CSEG consider they will need an additional 30 yards on that field.

red_179 · #**3423** Posted **Jun 29, 2016, 7:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by artvandelay

The above posts are a good example of the inability of your average person to distinguish between the wealth of an organization and the wealth of its owners. Did any of the Flames owners achieve their personal wealth via the ownership of the Flames? or did these fortunes come from other sources?

The disconnect is exasperated when it comes to replacing McMahon. The CFL is a league that has struggled to turn a profit and definitely not a major source of the owners wealth. There isn't an owner in the CFL that hasn't needed public funds to build a stadium.

Ramsayfarian · #**3424** Posted **Jun 30, 2016, 1:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

Thanks for posting the video & report odogfo.
I noticed the video shows a US football field in CFL mode - hopefully CSEG consider they will need an additional 30 yards on that field.

Good catch on the size of the field. Once again Kenny and his cronies are just dialing it in and hoping the unwashed buys in. I like how the rich have no problem socializing debt but will always privatize the profit. Fuck them, until I'm one of them.

Does iStock do renderings?

Maybe I'm just hungry but I'm I the only one who sees an open face sandwich here.

CalgaryAlex · #**3425** Posted **Jun 30, 2016, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Maybe I'm just hungry but I'm I the only one who sees an open face sandwich here.

Definitely a big turd sandwich

kiwi · #**3426** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 5:34 PM**

So what's the latest on this project?

jeffwhit · #**3427** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 6:57 PM**

The amount of latte-sipping in that video is off the hook. I'm all in now.

rotten42 · #**3428** Posted **Jul 27, 2016, 4:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

Thanks for posting the video & report odogfo.
I noticed the video shows a US football field in CFL mode - hopefully CSEG consider they will need an additional 30 yards on that field.

....going to need a new pair of sunglasses with all those lens flairs going on.

Socguy · #**3429** Posted **Nov 14, 2016, 1:38 AM**

CBC is running a story that claims the renderings the city received from CSEC clearly showing a link between this project and an Olympic bid. Furthermore, they were highly detailed right down to the washrooms showing that the CalgaryNEXT project is what the Flames actually want to build and not some trial balloon they were floating.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/city-council-calgarynext-arena-stadium-flames-1.3846167

monocle · #**3430** Posted **Nov 14, 2016, 2:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socguy

CBC is running a story that claims the renderings the city received from CSEC clearly showing a link between this project and an Olympic bid. Furthermore, they were highly detailed right down to the washrooms showing that the CalgaryNEXT project is what the Flames actually want to build and not some trial balloon they were floating.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/city-council-calgarynext-arena-stadium-flames-1.3846167

Can't be surprised, he was joking about a potential bid when he first announced the proposal. What's a bit off is King being on the tourism board. If he voted to explore an Olympic bid, that's getting a little cozy. Again, not surprised.

Bigtime · #**3431** Posted **Nov 14, 2016, 3:14 PM**

I for one am shocked, SHOCKED by this news...

suburbia · #**3432** Posted **Nov 14, 2016, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by monocle

Can't be surprised, he was joking about a potential bid when he first announced the proposal. What's a bit off is King being on the tourism board. If he voted to explore an Olympic bid, that's getting a little cozy. Again, not surprised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I for one am shocked, SHOCKED by this news...

It was right for city council to wrestle partial power away from the tourism board for the bid assessment phase.

monocle · #**3433** Posted **Nov 17, 2016, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

It was right for city council to wrestle partial power away from the tourism board for the bid assessment phase.

What's your guess on time liine? I heard that the City was looking to renew the lease for greyhound in the summer. Maybe you are getting your Firepark Fantasy after all?

The Fisher Account · #**3434** Posted **Nov 17, 2016, 11:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by monocle

What's your guess on time liine? I heard that the City was looking to renew the lease for greyhound in the summer. Maybe you are getting your Firepark Fantasy after all?

Don't encourage him

bt04ku · #**3435** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 1:25 AM**

As found by somebody else over at CP.

Victoria Park is the best location for the city, but with or without an Olympic bid, does the city get anymore leeway from the public in giving money for that location compared to the West Village one? Not sure I buy it. Or does that location give the city more flexibility in directing money there? IIRC all the zone's dollars (say for a CRL) have been committed, no?

craner · #**3436** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by monocle

What's your guess on time liine? I heard that the City was looking to renew the lease for greyhound in the summer. Maybe you are getting your Firepark Fantasy after all?

How about Greyhound to Firepark to free up the West Village land ?

CalgaryAlex · #**3437** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 3:54 PM**

I wonder if the city needs one central bus depot? This would be a location for all Greyhound, Red Arrow, Brewster, On-It etc. buses to congregate at and set out from. If setup properly, it could form a decent transportation hub, especially if integrated with a nearby c-train station. Probably a long-shot due to the structure of bus transportation here.

milomilo · #**3438** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 4:47 PM**

You could add the airport BRT to that list as well. But it's too good a concept to ever happen, we'll just stick with a bunch of disconnected services which no one will ever use.

MalcolmTucker · #**3439** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

I wonder if the city needs one central bus depot? This would be a location for all Greyhound, Red Arrow, Brewster, On-It etc. buses to congregate at and set out from. If setup properly, it could form a decent transportation hub, especially if integrated with a nearby c-train station. Probably a long-shot due to the structure of bus transportation here.

In one of the long term transport report I remember seeing this. But that could be a decade back now.

suburbia · #**3440** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 4:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

I wonder if the city needs one central bus depot? This would be a location for all Greyhound, Red Arrow, Brewster, On-It etc. buses to congregate at and set out from. If setup properly, it could form a decent transportation hub, especially if integrated with a nearby c-train station. Probably a long-shot due to the structure of bus transportation here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

You could add the airport BRT to that list as well. But it's too good a concept to ever happen, we'll just stick with a bunch of disconnected services which no one will ever use.

An interesting thought, and correctly observed as something not overly easy to do given the number of moving parts. If there is merit, it would be appropriate maybe to consider along the north corridor of the greenline. There aren't too many places people would want dozens of buses congregating, however. Being a non-daily use item for most people, it is not as TOD attractive as it may seem on paper.