[darwink]

There was to be some synergies between a stadium, field house and say a replacement for the Stampede Grandstand. The biggest challenge with stadia is that they only get used tens of times per year.

Hey I like the Grandstand idea too, but the idea was rejected during the Olympics bid in favour of renovating McMahon for cheaper and retaining the standalone fieldhouse which was going to be used for curling. My understanding is the Stampede and the Stampeders both had deal breakers which were incompatible with the other.

I don't remember talk of trying to do a shared base for all four--though that doesn't mean it wasn't looked at a tiny bit.

 

[darwink]

My Fear: No one is willing to make hard choices and this goes to a plebiscite.

Nah. It will just die again.

Something like this needs a vision to move forward. Without that to break through the multi-interested party morass, it just limps along unresolved.

 

[DougB]

If (when) the Event Centre gets built in it's proposed location, and the Saddledome gets torn down, I think the vacant land from the dome would be great for a new stadium. Make C+E All-in-one. Stampede, hockey, football, lacrosse, concerts. Soccer?

Nah...they should rebuild Funteer World, the pre-Saddledome occupant of that site. It had a great splash park, potatoe sack slide and obstacle course all for $2 ($1 if you clipped a coupon from the Herald's comics section)

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Stampede and the Stampeders both had deal breakers

I think Stampede's was the loss of the track... Can you do Stampede without a 'stampede'?

 

[DougB]

I think Stampede's was the loss of the track... Can you do Stampede without a 'stampede'?

Could it be done inside the stadium?

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Could it be done inside the stadium?

I would think so, a 400m track would be exciting and likely make it pretty competitive but I also am a city boy. Maybe those that grew up with mud on their boots would have something different to say.

 

[403808]

I would think so, a 400m track would be exciting and likely make it pretty competitive but I also am a city boy. Maybe those that grew up with mud on their boots would have something different to say.

A 400m track is half the length of the current grandstand track. Having said that, the chucks are not sustainable long-term due to the costs of operating a chuckwagon team. The Stampede has already reduced the number of teams from 4 to 3 (each heat). It's a pretty expensive sport.

 

[haltcatchfire]

I hope you enjoy chaos and the Greenline being mired in another decade of uncertainty. Not to mention privatized healthcare.

That’s exactly who those people are and what they like.

 

[jdixon]

I also think it's important to point out that the last location would have benefitted from having two ctrain lines accessible. Any of the alternatives that I've seen talked about would only really have one line within walking distance.

 

[adamyyc]

I like the idea of West Village in theory, primarily for the potential prospect of securing funding to clean up the contamination in the area, which would unlock development portential, and because development in the area would likely include improvements to trails and natural areas along the southern bank of the Bow River, which are badly needed in the West Village area. It may also spur some realignment of road infrastructure in the area to a more efficient configuration (preferably one setback further from the river so it can be better enjoyed).

But that area is so isolated due to all of the physical barriers (river, roads, rail), that I have a difficult time picturing it as a vibrant neighbourhood if an arena (or arena + multi sport fieldhouse) takes up so much of the footprint. I just can’t imagine the area reaching critical mass with so much land dedicated to the venue.

Time and again, we have seen venues developed in similar physically constrained locations, in run down areas, with no existing population/business, and grandiose plans for redevelopment which never come to fruition. There are of course exceptions to this, but too often, these venues are surrounded by parking lots for decades, and minimal adjacent development has occurred before it’s time to replace the venue again.

Don’t get me wrong, Victoria Park may also end up being a sea of parking lots for decades to come, but I see a clearer path forward for the creation of a vibrant neighborhood in Victoria Park than I do in West Village.

 

[Patrick.1980]

.Do any US cities have facilities ready to welcome a team in the short to medium term? Add in that the Seattle expansion team hasn't performed well and the continued struggles of the Coyotes, the chances of a new US team in the medium term is virtually nil

I wouldn’t say virtually nil. Not likely, but anything’s possible. Major markets still left would be Houston, Portland, Cleveland, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Cincinnati, San Diego , Orlando, Baltimore or Salt Lake. I purposefully left out Atlanta.

Houston, Portland, Orlando and Cleveland have facilities that could host hockey games of decent capacity. The others have arenas that could host hockey but at low capacity. I wouldn’t rule out places like Houston, Orlando or Portland.
Nobody saw hockey coming to Nashville or Columbus or Vegas. Vegas’ success makes Orlando a possibility.

As for Seattle, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘not performing well’. They sellout every game.

 

[konradiical]

The Flames are not moving. The NHL would not allow it. They do not want any relocation. If the Flames had no intent build something new or the city had no where for them to play, then there would be a problem. Ottawa faces the same threat about Quebec City with their arena as well.

Sure other cities can be attractive, but you have to consider league alignment so it has to be a pacific/mountain time team. Also you need someone to buy the team. Sure Portland or Salt Lake can work, but you need to have an owner who wants to play there and whoever owns the arena needs to let them play there. relocation is so complicated, that's why Arizona or Ottawa have not yet, because they have shown intent to build an arena. Atlanta was an emergency situation to Winnipeg, and unless I'm wrong, seems like the only relocation in a long long time.

Quebec wont get the Flames regardless of threats, as the owners of the NHL teams wont allow it. Detroit and Columbus would need to move back West which both would not agree to. Quebec even getting an expansion team is a huge ask atm. Houston could work better, but the guy who owns the Rockets would need to buy the team or allow the new owners to play in their arena, a sit is their only arena option.

All these relocation threats are empty, whether from politicians or journalists. Danielle Smith has no say or knowledge on the status of this team moving. The NHL owners will not want to leave Calgary as it is a profitable market that 90% of the owners want to keep, and they are the one's who vote on allowing a team to leave. Teams can't just leave, they need to be allowed to. The owners will also just cave in and agree to a deal before and real threat of moving. They don't want to lose this team. The NHL does not want to lose any Canadian teams, lose a historic rivalry or money making market.

Arizona is the only team with some threat of moving, IF they cannot agree to their Tempe Entertainment District.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I wouldn’t say virtually nil. Not likely, but anything’s possible. Major markets still left would be Houston, Portland, Cleveland, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Cincinnati, San Diego , Orlando, Baltimore or Salt Lake. I purposefully left out Atlanta.

Houston, Portland, Orlando and Cleveland have facilities that could host hockey games of decent capacity. The others have arenas that could host hockey but at low capacity. I wouldn’t rule out places like Houston, Orlando or Portland.
Nobody saw hockey coming to Nashville or Columbus or Vegas. Vegas’ success makes Orlando a possibility.

As for Seattle, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘not performing well’. They sellout every game.

Houston would be the most likely, and isn't out of the question. Tilman Fertitta (Owner of the Toyota Centre and the Houston rockets) has already expressed interested in owning a hockey team, and even has said it's a dream of his, so a move to Houston can't be discounted.

After Houston it drops off significantly. I don't think the league would like to see a move, but if they did ever go for it, I would probably say Portland or Orlando. I only mention Orlando because it is a big tourist destination, and we've seen how well things have worked for Vegas. Who knows, maybe even SLC could be doable.

 

[JonnyCanuck]

Don’t get me wrong, Victoria Park may also end up being a sea of parking lots for decades to come, but I see a clearer path forward for the creation of a vibrant neighborhood in Victoria Park than I do in West Village.

Yes let's finish one part of downtown (Rivers District inc East Village) before we start developing another large section. The worst scenario would be to have undeveloped land and a sea of parking lots in both east and west with sporadic development or unfinished development in each.
Right now there is no burning need to develop West Village further. A lot of it is greenspace. There is an urgent need, in my mind, to finish what was started in the Rivers District.

 

[CBBarnett]

Yes let's finish one part of downtown (Rivers District inc East Village) before we start developing another large section. The worst scenario would be to have undeveloped land and a sea of parking lots in both east and west with sporadic development or unfinished development in each.
Right now there is no burning need to develop West Village further. A lot of it is greenspace. There is an urgent need, in my mind, to finish what was started in the Rivers District.

I see no obvious concern about the sustainability, economic or urban planning outcomes of creating 2 competing, parking empire/entertainment/event districts, both fueled by large amounts of public subsidy 3kms apart in a city of under 2 million.

Sarcasm aside - it's always a good time for a reminder of the back-to-basics on what we are talking about here as I don't think anything has actually changed - we (the public) have always and continue to owe CSEC exactly zero.

We of course can choose to offer some subsidy in return for outcomes that are in the public's interest. I would argue that it's not in the public interest to give money at all - especially when the counterparty's position is closer to blackmail rather than arguing a co-benefit between private and public interests. But even if the amount of subsidy should be greater than zero and we can trust the party we are negotiating with, the public's bargaining position is still entirely one of strength - CSEC's job remains to prove to us what's in it for us.

The real issue here is how bad CSEC has been at this from the beginning - all their poor efforts have hardened the opposition to their project. Their approach is always a combo of lazily regurgitating every other North American arena deal promise from the playbook, combined with the usual vague threats to move the team and trying to leverage their sway with the municipal or provincial government. They don't care about West Village or Victoria Park, they only care about the subsidy they can extract - both in the upfront funding and the control of ongoing revenues. It's is all just another tired rehash designed to extract the maximum public subsidy possible.

If business was so bad here and so great somewhere else, they have had 3 municipal elections, an Olympic plebiscite, a few provincial ones that have told them their subsidy is very unpopular. Several oil booms and busts, all sorts of changes to the economy - surely these super smart billionaire group would have acted by now if business was better elsewhere? They won't because there is no where to go, or they would have done so already - the arena saga has been going on for 15 years now.