New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Innersoul1]

You can listen to the interview here: http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/the-big-show/king-calgarynext-not-dead-limbo/

I will post some thoughts shortly.

I feel that King's Fan 960 was probably one of the biggest revelations into the arena that I have heard in a LONG time. Probably one of the most honest too. Its been interesting reading all of the back and forth on the forum. All I will say that like him or not King's specific job description at this point is to lobby for the new facility whether we like it or not. I just think that he isn't that great at the job. He couldn't sell you a monorail if you wanted one

Here's how I see it. CSEC has been focused on the West Village site for the simple reason that it is the only site that can accommodate the events centre, arena and field. house. Obviously, selling the idea of the field house and event centre is something that they felt would get the city on board. The problem is that they had put all of their eggs in one basket with the West Village site and they simply don't have another alternative (seems like poor planning to me).

When the City made it clear that they were not interested in the WV site the Flames continued to push this option because there wasn't a suitable alternative. When the City put a focus on Victoria Park CSEC had no choice but to look at the option knowing it was the only alternative where the city was willing to back them to some extent.

The problem for CSEC, as King points out, is that the Vic Park option works for an event centre and arena but leaves the Stampeders in the dark. King even points out that after seeing the new stadia in Regina, Hamilton and Winnipeg that they want better for the Stamps, but without a WV option they don't have the land to build something that big.

Gives a pretty good lay of the land, but it also gives the impression that king got his hand slapped for the comments that he made.

[Calgarian]

I have every confidence we will get a new arena, and it will be absolutely world class. Maybe not the best in the world like Edmonton got, but something top notch for sure.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I have every confidence we will get a new arena, and it will be absolutely world class. Maybe not the best in the world like Edmonton got, but something top notch for sure.

I actually think it will be a blessing in the end that it's taken them this long. The risk of a Stampetecture brick barn has drastically diminished in recent years. What was acceptible even 5 years ago won't be now. Especially in comparison to Edmonton's new arena. In the end I don't think it will be Calgary Next that gets built. It will be a not yet seen design for Victoria Park.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

The lack of event centre for the Stamps makes sense from their perspective I suppose. The only thing that I could see being remotely feasible would be the site of the Vic Park Bus Barn .. But I'm not sure it would fit there - or work construction wise.

One interesting benefit of East Vic Park is that it could fit within the realm of the Stampede Trail redevelopment, and could help give that movement a kick start.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Your honesty is what baffles me, because it reveals your lack of reason. I can visualize you foaming at the mouth while reading your posts.

Foaming at the mouth? You're just confirming what I've said for a long time. Anyone who disagrees with you guys gets demonized. Lack of reason? What are you talking about?

A building can look plain from the outside but still offer exceptional services and seating to people who attend events there, while costing less than an architecturally advanced building. If the city contributes to an arena, I would rather that the guts of it are top-notch while saving on making it look fancy for drone footage before commercial breaks. Are you implying that if we got Calatrava to design an arena for us, event-goers would gratefully pay more to visit the blessed structure? I can only assume this is your understanding of big league sports economics.

You used "basic" but expect me to be a mind reader to know that you only meant basic for the exterior? Instead of insulting people who don't agree with you try being more clear and open-minded. I actually agree with you that the functional parts of the facilities are a lot more important than the overall appearance. I don't think we should go for super basic but we don't to go super fancy either unless the Flames owners want to pay for it. As for my understanding of big league sports economics I have a strong hunch my knowledge is better than yours.

What are you talking about when it comes to factoring in growth? Should we build an arena that can hold 100,000 people watching a hockey game? Oh wait, New York City has a much higher population and MSG has a capacity lower than the Saddledome.

Try reading what I wrote more carefully. I was talking about projects in general not the arena. Did you purposely misinterpret what I said so you could take a ridiculous shot at me?

That's two s for you. If I go back further I can add a hell of a lot more. Confusion abounds.

The only reason you're confused is because you refuse to be open-minded and admit that you don't know everything. I'm not trying to be confrontational but I can't help but think that's what some of you are hoping for. If you don't want to entertain differing opinions and facts that don't support your position that's your loss. I'll continue to read everyone's posts and agree or disagree as I see fit.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I think he's just baiting people into arguments for shits and giggles, so I put him on ignore.

No, but that's exactly what you are doing.

[ggopher]

I think it makes great sense to keep the arena close to downtown.

However, a football stadium is completely different since it will only be used 10 times per year. And even a field house is a tough sell.

The only reason the Flames want to include a field house is because that is where the pot of money is.

McMahon stadium is adequate, it just needs the concourse to be rebuilt.

[dazzlingdave88]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

You don't know where to start because nothing I said is wrong.

The real problem with this forum isn't people going off topic. It's people like you who are unwilling to see and admit that they don't know everything and that their view of the world can be wrong. Expecting everyone to have the same version of the truth shows just how immature this place can be. You're one of the worst. Of course you're going to ignore me...I don't believe in the echo chamber rules you do.

So when people don't agree with your point, it is a problem and people are being immature?

Pointing out people's opinions are wrong, isn't winning you any arguments. Unless you aren't allowing them to have opinions?

At least the other three posters tried to address your points with valid arguments, you haven't done as good of job.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by ggopher

I think it makes great sense to keep the arena close to downtown.

However, a football stadium is completely different since it will only be used 10 times per year. And even a field house is a tough sell.

The only reason the Flames want to include a field house is because that is where the pot of money is.

McMahon stadium is adequate, it just needs the concourse to be rebuilt.

I don't go to games specifically because it is very uncomfortable as a tall person. Would I pay more to fix this at the current location? No, as it can't really be used that often due to the neighbours unfortunately.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Foaming at the mouth? You're just confirming what I've said for a long time. Anyone who disagrees with you guys gets demonized. Lack of reason? What are you talking about?



You used "basic" but expect me to be a mind reader to know that you only meant basic for the exterior? Instead of insulting people who don't agree with you try being more clear and open-minded. I actually agree with you that the functional parts of the facilities are a lot more important than the overall appearance. I don't think we should go for super basic but we don't to go super fancy either unless the Flames owners want to pay for it. As for my understanding of big league sports economics I have a strong hunch my knowledge is better than yours.



Try reading what I wrote more carefully. I was talking about projects in general not the arena. Did you purposely misinterpret what I said so you could take a ridiculous shot at me?



The only reason you're confused is because you refuse to be open-minded and admit that you don't know everything. I'm not trying to be confrontational but I can't help but think that's what some of you are hoping for. If you don't want to entertain differing opinions and facts that don't support your position that's your loss. I'll continue to read everyone's posts and agree or disagree as I see fit.

Lol

I said "basic" and you insulted me by saying I'd rather have MB/SK mediocrity. I posted an elaboration and you get offended. Sorry about that. Your understanding of "big league sports economics" is yet to be determined as you have not provided any background on this.

I tried reading your post more carefully, but as I am also not a mind-reader, I must have missed the clearly-stated part of your post where you abandoned the arena topic to 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the city's lack of foresight when it came to... Crowchild? One of the hundreds of bridges and overpasses in the city? City parks? I dunno dude, it wasn't specified.

I'm confused because you assert your knowledge and then provide no elaboration on your statements. You're shitting on the city admin and council for not throwing money at this, when they have proven to be prudent and responsible on this file. Don't act like your attitude isn't confrontational.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by dazzlingdave88

So when people don't agree with your point, it is a problem and people are being immature?

Pointing out people's opinions are wrong, isn't winning you any arguments. Unless you aren't allowing them to have opinions?

At least the other three posters tried to address your points with valid arguments, you haven't done as good of job.

Where are you coming from on this? Where did I say if people don't agree with me that they're being immature? It's the exact opposite. Same goes for opinions. You seem to be confused when it comes to who is saying what.

What makes you think their points are my valid than mine?

[Calgarian]

This thread is a lot better with our resident foaming mouth breather muted, you guys should try it!

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Lol

I said "basic" and you insulted me by saying I'd rather have MB/SK mediocrity. I posted an elaboration and you get offended. Sorry about that. Your understanding of "big league sports economics" is yet to be determined as you have not provided any background on this.

I tried reading your post more carefully, but as I am also not a mind-reader, I must have missed the part of your post where you abandoned the arena topic to 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the city's lack of foresight when it came to... Crowchild? One of the hundreds of bridges and overpasses in the city? City parks? I dunno dude, it wasn't specified.

I'm confused because you assert your knowledge and then provide no elaboration on your statements. You're shitting on the city admin and council for not throwing money at this, when they have proven to be prudent and responsible on this file. Don't act like your attitude isn't confrontational.

You're being way too sensitive. My remark about Winnipeg and Manitoba wasn't an insulted directed at you. It was just asking if you are okay with doing as little as possible when it comes to projects. I should have made it very clear that I was referring to infrastructure type projects in general not just sports facilities.

I thought the point I made about the economics of sports facilities was rather self-evident. I don't like to insult people's intelligence by spelling out the obvious. In this case my point was yes the Saddledome does have enough seats but the price the Flames can make off those seats given the current configuration is not optimal. My understanding is that the lower bowl currently has around 6K seats and that newer arenas have 9K to 10K. These are premium priced seats that command much higher ticket prices than seats in the upper sections. Whatever that difference might be in a new building would be significant when multiplied by say 4K * 41. Same goes for club seating. Unless someone can prove that the Flames can charge these higher prices in the current building it's clear that they are losing out on a lot of potential revenue.

As for me shitting on city council and administration it's not because they are not throwing money at Calgary NEXT. That is very clear by my posts. I was talking about their lack of action in planning to clean up the creosote. The problem is getting worse as indicated by this news story from about three years ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/cr...erns-west-hillhurst-homeowners-1.2494446

What happens if the problem because so serious that immediate action needs to be taken? Does it not make sense to at least have a plan in place?

At no time have I said the city should throw money at Calgary NEXT. I could back in this forum and find posts of mine where I clearly state the plan needs work. Overall I do like the concept but it needs refinement. The Flames did a horrible job when they first presented the concept. It would have been nice if the city had asked them to come back with more detailed plans instead of going into attack mode right away. You might not agree with this but in the end I believe we are going to find out that the city never would have been happy with Calgary NEXT in the West Village no matter how much of the cost the Flames owners covered or how much housing/retail it contained.

By the way, I'm not trying to be confrontational. If you think so you're really misinterpreting my posts. Remember disagreement is not the same as confrontation.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

This thread is a lot better with our resident foaming mouth breather muted, you guys should try it!

Maybe they should mute you. Your immaturity adds nothing to the debate. If they want to see people get insulted they'd be better off going to Twitter. Those folks are a lot better at it than you and as an added bonus they occasionally have something worthwhile to say.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Maybe they should mute you. Your immaturity adds nothing to the debate. If they want to see people get insulted they'd be better off going to Twitter. Those folks are a lot better at it than you and as an added bonus they occasionally have something worthwhile to say.

Quoted because, well just because.

[craner]

Originally Posted by ggopher

McMahon stadium is adequate, it just needs the concourse to be rebuilt.

In what universe is McMahon adequate ?

[speedog]

Originally Posted by craner

In what universe is McMahon adequate ?

It would appear that they haven't really been at McMahon or been in a variety of it's nooks, crannies and such. The kitchens are pretty much falling apart, the suites - laughable, washrooms - ugh. McMahon has served Calgary well but it is now more of an embarrassment than the Saddledome.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

In this case my point was yes the Saddledome does have enough seats but the price the Flames can make off those seats given the current configuration is not optimal. My understanding is that the lower bowl currently has around 6K seats and that newer arenas have 9K to 10K. These are premium priced seats that command much higher ticket prices than seats in the upper sections.

Ah, so this time the Flames want more lower bowl seats instead of fewer?? Where's my time machine....

(For those that haven't been around here long enough... at the Flames' insistence in 1995, many seats were "moved" from the lower bowl to the upper bowl. In addition to converting some seats to premium seats, adding boxes, and generally making the seating bowl and concourse uglier at the same time.)

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I have every confidence we will get a new arena, and it will be absolutely world class. Maybe not the best in the world like Edmonton got, but something top notch for sure.

I'm not sure all around that Edmonton's couldn't have been better. I recently went to a game there and was less than impressed. If you were in the first level there was an over abundance of vendors. The 200 level on the other hand had very few options. The wait was close to 30 mins at one of the few beer stands. We chose one of the guys who sell beer from the portable coolers. He sold us one for $14. Guess you can charge what you want when the other option is standing in line or taking that stupid long escalator down to the first level. They need to get the concessions sorted out for the majority of fans who sit in the second deck.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

You're being way too sensitive. My remark about Winnipeg and Manitoba wasn't an insulted directed at you. It was just asking if you are okay with doing as little as possible when it comes to projects. I should have made it very clear that I was referring to infrastructure type projects in general not just sports facilities.

May I remind you that my mediocre little town managed to get a new arena and a new stadium built in the last 15 years

Is MTS Centre the grandest facility there is? No. But it was good enough to land Atlanta's hockey team from the impressive Philips Arena. And what's more, it was built with a measly $40 million public contribution, so as a mediocre Winnipegger I can happily accept that result instead of bending over to pick up a massive Edmonton-style tab to gift Katz with a free arena so that he can have more money left over to proposition Brazilian models with.