New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Difference between this in Ottawa is like comparing apples to oranges. Ottawa is outside of the city itself, and accessibility is difficult since there isn't any transit, limited roads, and is far removed from any urban hot spots areas. Not to mention, it's a hockey arena so gets more usages throughout the year. So for football stadiums, the location of Ottawa's arena actually isn't that bad based since NFL teams have built them out far before. Since it's games would only be occurring once a week/twice a month over a several month period, lack of accessibility isn't as big of a concern.

My proposed location is within the city, in fact less than a kilometer removed from Stampede Park, 1.2km from Inglewood, and 1.5km from downtown in general. There will be an LRT stop on the plot of land built within the next few years (granted greenline starts construction), and has a road network that allows vehicle access from all directions. And ultimately, the area is intended to become a TOD with mixed-used development, along with 11 st, and Inglewood isn't too far away either. (Mission/4 street isn't too far removed either via car)

I don't see how they're similar at all aside from the current state of underdevelopment. But my proposal at least has the intended potential for it.

I think that CSEC will have to - if they aren't already - consider building a new stadium outside of McMahon lands if they aren't interested in renovations. Because I don't believe the university is keen on the land being taken up by a stadium, and if there's a way they can rid of McMahon they'll be all for it. The only options I believe CSEC has is to convince the city to build the fieldhouse to football stadium specs, reno McMahon, or build a new stadium elsewhere in the city.

I posited the point about Ottawa knowing that it was a stretch in terms of direct comparison. However, I think that it's important to establish that the similarity that I foresee is that it will be a number of years before the Blackfoot location will be an actual node/ hub/district worthy of anything. I can't be convinced that this would really only be a temporary solution that would take years for the public to really adopt.

I think that we need to get beyond the fact that the new FOOTBALL stadium would have minimum usage. Granted it won't garner the same usage as the new arena but it opens up a lot of possibility. Large concerts, international soccer in addition to it's football capabilities. However, the success of that is contingent on the new stadium not being in an isolated node. I realize that Inglewood and downtown are a relative short distance away but that won't be the public perception generally speaking as there are too many barrier, even if they happen to be mental ones.

I agree the biggest conundrum is the location. But it is in the best interest of CSEC to select a location that has the services in place to support a stadium in a location that the public would adopt and where they could also do outdoor concerts. It's a lot of boxes to check.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by rotten42

Hard to back down from bullies when Nenshi is the bully in the room.

No actually - you're the bully.

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So I was thinking about the whole funding thing and I remembered that I have never heard much of European/British football (soccer) teams getting much in the way of public funding, for their much larger stadiums. This makes me call BS even more on the claim it's impossible for these things to be privately financed.

I did a bit of googling to back up my claims and I'm right, came across some articles like this one:

Public Money for Private Stadiums?



I stand by my position of if the Flames threaten to leave, why the hell should we care? Let them leave, they clearly have no loyalty to us. This piece also calls BS on the claims of economic revitalization, and I'm inclined to believe that rather than Ken King and his mouth breathing supporters.

I don't necessarily disagree with the overall sentiment of the piece that you have posted. It find that in a lot of respects North American sport is fickle especially when we compare it to football in Europe where everything is based on revenue. The experience in English football is much different. Noticeable differences are that you can't drink in the stands, food isnt sold in the stand either so revenue from those things are much lower. Thus, you really have to promote the fan experience and in the Premier League for example optimizing your stadium is key to that. Ownership understand that the more money you can make via ticket sales and stadium experience means money in the pocket. Remember each major city in England has multiple football stadiums so the idea that you could get government handout to because it increases the fabric of the city etc. is a non-starter. London alone has 14 professional clubs not including the smaller semi-professional clubs that play in smaller stadia. That's 14 significantly sized stadia and once you understand that you can see why those stadia are privately funded.

North American teams seem much more content on government handouts and the big problem is that in many places there is an appetite for governments to take on a portion of these costs. Supporters in North America are don't have the same allegiances to their teams in the broad spectrum that European supporters do.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

I agree the biggest conundrum is the location. But it is in the best interest of CSEC to select a location that has the services in place to support a stadium in a location that the public would adopt and where they could also do outdoor concerts. It's a lot of boxes to check.

I feel that aside from the Victoria Park Transit Garage, Blackfoot and Firepark locations, the only other reasonable location would be the one they've suggested - the West Village. But, instead of the football stadium being in the middle of it, it would be on the west end of it, boarding, or absorbing the land of the pumphouse theatre. It checks the boxes of being central, current LRT access, and in an area with strong TOD/ASP development aspirations.

But, the last bit is hindered of course by the contamination, and the amount of years it would take to clean up before any real development could occur. Because of this, there's nothing there, and is far removed from the downtown activity areas because of this. There's no cohesion to draw people into the area, and won't be for a long while.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by suburbia

No actually - you're the bully.

Did I offend the special snowflake?

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I feel that aside from the Victoria Park Transit Garage, Blackfoot and Firepark locations, the only other reasonable location would be the one they've suggested - the West Village. But, instead of the football stadium being in the middle of it, it would be on the west end of it, boarding, or absorbing the land of the pumphouse theatre. It checks the boxes of being central, current LRT access, and in an area with strong TOD/ASP development aspirations.

But, the last bit is hindered of course by the contamination, and the amount of years it would take to clean up before any real development could occur. Because of this, there's nothing there, and is far removed from the downtown activity areas because of this. There's no cohesion to draw people into the area, and won't be for a long while.

Query this:
What is the extent of the West Village Contamination. Is the Greyhound Site and the Mercedes Dealership large enough for a Football Stadium? Are those parcels contaminated too>

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, a stadium would require a lot less decontamination than the residential needed to fund a TIF/CRL to make the average person think that no public money is going into a stadium.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

Query this:
What is the extent of the West Village Contamination. Is the Greyhound Site and the Mercedes Dealership large enough for a Football Stadium? Are those parcels contaminated too>

The worst contamination is between Renfrew Chrysler's building and the river, according to the West Village ARP.

It would be smart to locate a stadium here, as minimal excavation would be required in comparison to high rise commercial development.

[Calgarian]

When they do remediation, they are going to entirely remove all the contamination regardless of what goes on top of it. Why do a half ass job that will need to be done again in the future?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

When they do remediation, they are going to entirely remove all the contamination regardless of what goes on top of it. Why do a half ass job that will need to be done again in the future?

Diminishing returns to scope. Might cost twice as much to get to 99% instead of 98%.

[Calgarian]

They will never get 100% (would have to dig under the river and in part of Hillhurst to do that), but they won't do it differently for an arena vs condo development.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

They will never get 100% (would have to dig under the river and in part of Hillhurst to do that), but they won't do it differently for an arena vs condo development.

Remediation standards for residential use are more onerous than for commercial, so it would certainly be done differently for condo development versus any non-residential use.

[Socguy]

Las Vegas (temporarily?) takes the crown for the new 'Worst stadium deal' in history!

http://deadspin.com/the-raiders-robbed-las-vegas-in-americas-worst-stadium-1795475973

[The Urbanist]

Wow - that's an ugly one.

[milomilo]

Flames could leave Calgary without new hockey arena, team's Brian Burke warns

TLDR: Greasy old rich guy threatens the Flames will 'just leave' if Canadian NHL players don't get tax breaks and Calgary doesn't pay for their arena.

I hope they do leave, it will be a badge of honour for the city to not give in to the complete nonsense that is professional sports.

[Luk_o]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Flames could leave Calgary without new hockey arena, team's Brian Burke warns

TLDR: Greasy old rich guy threatens the Flames will 'just leave' if Canadian NHL players don't get tax breaks and Calgary doesn't pay for their arena.

I hope they do leave, it will be a badge of honour for the city to not give in to the complete nonsense that is professional sports.

That nonsense as you call it has a massive impact on business and culture in this city. It is in the interest of both parties to work together to get a deal done with the appropriate amount of public money being utilized. Not that I think they would, but the Flames leaving town would be huge loss whether you're a sports fan or not.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Luk_o

That nonsense as you call it has a massive impact on business and culture in this city. It is in the interest of both parties to work together to get a deal done with the appropriate amount of public money being utilized. Not that I think they would, but the Flames leaving town would be huge loss whether you're a sports fan or not.

Would it be? We only ever here that from one side of the argument, the sports teams. Everyone on the other side seems to say that sports teams have negligible impact on the economic fortunes of cities.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Luk_o

That nonsense as you call it has a massive impact on business and culture in this city. It is in the interest of both parties to work together to get a deal done with the appropriate amount of public money being utilized. Not that I think they would, but the Flames leaving town would be huge loss whether you're a sports fan or not.

If the Flames left, it would be just a matter of months before they were replaced with a relocated or expansion team. Playing in Calgary, even if it is in the Saddledome, is still probably a better deal than what some existing NHL markets can provide an owner.

That's why the threat is so hollow... everyone knows that if the Flames act on the threat, another team would jump into the market right away. There would be no Winnipeg-style 15 year gap in NHL hockey.

[MalcolmTucker]

Every year there is a gap the city would be out of pocket at least $10 million, plus any larger life cycle or capital improvements to the building that come up.

Even at 5 years, the city is out $50 million bucks, a good portion or what would be a city contribution to a new arena, with nothing to show for it.

[Luk_o]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Would it be? We only ever here that from one side of the argument, the sports teams. Everyone on the other side seems to say that sports teams have negligible impact on the economic fortunes of cities.

If that's true then why did Winnipeg and QC go through the trouble of building new arenas and fight so hard to bring hockey back to their cities after they lost their teams? I can guarantee you the majority of people in those cities prefer having their teams in town than not. Its not just economic fortune, which I would argue is far from negligible - It significantly adds to the culture of a city, especially in Canada. In my time living in Calgary, I have never seen a bigger public celebration with 10's of thousands of people flooding the streets than when the Flames are in the playoffs - You don't get that without a professional sports franchise - It's undeniable whether a fan or not. Imagine any major N.American city without their 'nonsense' professional sports teams. Flames also pour millions of dollars back into the community every year.

Also, aside from the Flames, a new arena also gives us a proper modern venue to host any concert.