[DougB]

I prefer the Vic Park area. They have a plan that could integrate well with EV and the rest of Downtown as well as Stampede. They can even fit a Winnipeg-style CFL/CPL stadium beside it if they want with all the open land. It also works well with the green line routes.

A stadium to replace the Stampede Grandstand would OK - if the site if sufficiently large. Otherwise, best to have in somewhere like Fire Park or the motocross park along Blackfoot. An inner city stadium would create a massive dead zone.

 

[CBBarnett]

How would a different location resolve any of the challenges? The previously proposed site would have occupied low cost land, free from industrial contamination, in an area that is basically a blank slate for redevelopment, near all three light rail lines, at the end of an extended 17th Ave bar strip. About the ony advantages of a different location might possibly be eliminating the cost to raise above flood plain, or anchoring a large private sector development.

Well, with a West Village location potential back in the mix, we can more obviously create two competing, publicly subsidized sports/entertainment/convention/parking empires in a CSEC West Village and a Stampede's Stampede Park. If the rumours of provincial involvement are true, we can also use public funding from a whole other layer of government here so it's not even just local public funding at stake.

While it might not be a land efficient or cost effective outcome - and the direct competition created by each will undercut the business case for the other - I can think of a few dozen people who benefit so it's not a total waste. Our goal of course, is to ultimately to resolve all these pesky "market failures" preventing both us and the billionaires alike from accessing the arenas we want.

But why stop at only 2 competing entertainment districts? What's good for the goose must be good for the gander - anyone else we want to help out while we are generous? Maybe Calgary Sport and Social intermural clubs could use a few hundred million in public funding too? After all, we have about 5 "western themed" heritage museums that all do similar things and rely on public funding and an inordinate ability to attract provincial attention when they are struggling, why not have 5 entertainment districts?

 

[artvandelay]

A stadium to replace the Stampede Grandstand would OK - if the site if sufficiently large. Otherwise, best to have in somewhere like Fire Park or the motocross park along Blackfoot. An inner city stadium would create a massive dead zone.

Not necessarily - as long as it's designed well. Look at Landsdowne for example.

 

[darwink]

Well, the stadium is still a dead zone. It is just the surrounding bit mitigates it.

Anyways, way ahead of ourselves, as is the province, the city. The reasons Calgary Next didn't work still exist.

 

[DougB]

Well, with a West Village location potential back in the mix, we can more obviously create two competing, publicly subsidized sports/entertainment/convention/parking empires in a CSEC West Village and a Stampede's Stampede Park. If the rumours of provincial involvement are true, we can also use public funding from a whole other layer of government here so it's not even just local public funding at stake.

While it might not be a land efficient or cost effective outcome - and the direct competition created by each will undercut the business case for the other - I can think of a few dozen people who benefit so it's not a total waste. Our goal of course, is to ultimately to resolve all these pesky "market failures" preventing both us and the billionaires alike from accessing the arenas we want.

But why stop at only 2 competing entertainment districts? What's good for the goose must be good for the gander - anyone else we want to help out while we are generous? Maybe Calgary Sport and Social intermural clubs could use a few hundred million in public funding too? After all, we have about 5 "western themed" heritage museums that all do similar things and rely on public funding and an inordinate ability to attract provincial attention when they are struggling, why not have 5 entertainment districts?

I'd like a mega ski resort in Kananaskis

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Well, the stadium is still a dead zone. It is just the surrounding bit mitigates it.

Anyways, way ahead of ourselves, as is the province, the city. The reasons Calgary Next didn't work still exist.

Which are? Not being cheeky, just need a reminder. I thought it was the contamination who was going to pay to clean it up?

With WV is there no potential cost savings for the city in the sense that if CSEC wants to buy and develop the land around the arena/stadium that's work you as a city don't have to do (ie CMLC)?

 

[DougB]

Not necessarily - as long as it's designed well. Look at Landsdowne for example.

It is up against the barrier create by the canal.

I haven't been to Ottawa, or anywhere in Canada other than AB and BC, since the 90's. From what I faintly remember, Landsowne detracted, not enhanced the Glebe, which is one of Ottawa's most desirable areas.

 

[darwink]

Which are? Not being cheeky, just need a reminder. I thought it was the contamination who was going to pay to clean it up?

That no one wanted to put in $4-500 million for a new CFL stadium. So the economies of putting the arena, field house, and stadium together don't really exist.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

That no one wanted to put in $4-500 million for a new CFL stadium. So the economies of putting the arena, field house, and stadium together don't really exist.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's nothing saying that the combined arena, fieldhouse, and stadium have been ruled out. The study of Foothills Athletic Park have concluded. They want to build a fieldhouse, but nothing has locked that into being at Foothills Athletic Park. One could argue a more centrally located facility wouldn't hurt the city.

With CalgaryNext its biggest benefit is its biggest negative: All-in-one. Sure, you get everything all in one place but you also take it away from the C+E and Foothills Athletic Park.

 

[darwink]

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's nothing saying that the combined arena, fieldhouse, and stadium have been ruled out. The study of Foothills Athletic Park have concluded. They want to build a fieldhouse, but nothing has locked that into being at Foothills Athletic Park. One could argue a more centrally located facility wouldn't hurt the city.

With CalgaryNext its biggest benefit is its biggest negative: All-in-one. Sure, you get everything all in one place but you also take it away from the C+E and Foothills Athletic Park.

This is all correct. But Calgary next was around $1.2 billion if I remember, plus land and remediation costs. Event Centre+Field House as different projects is $870 million or there abouts.
The cost difference comes from scaling up the field house to 25-30,000 seats from 5-10,000.

 

[O-tac]

nevermind

 

[DougB]

This is all correct. But Calgary next was around $1.2 billion if I remember, plus land and remediation costs. Event Centre+Field House as different projects is $870 million or there abouts.
The cost difference comes from scaling up the field house to 25-30,000 seats from 5-10,000.

There has 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.

 

[Joborule]

A stadium to replace the Stampede Grandstand would OK - if the site if sufficiently large. Otherwise, best to have in somewhere like Fire Park or the motocross park along Blackfoot. An inner city stadium would create a massive dead zone.

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?

 

[CalgaryTiger]

This is all correct. But Calgary next was around $1.2 billion if I remember, plus land and remediation costs. Event Centre+Field House as different projects is $870 million or there abouts.
The cost difference comes from scaling up the field house to 25-30,000 seats from 5-10,000.

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

 

[DougB]

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's nothing saying that the combined arena, fieldhouse, and stadium have been ruled out. The study of Foothills Athletic Park have concluded. They want to build a fieldhouse, but nothing has locked that into being at Foothills Athletic Park. One could argue a more centrally located facility wouldn't hurt the city.

With CalgaryNext its biggest benefit is its biggest negative: All-in-one. Sure, you get everything all in one place but you also take it away from the C+E and Foothills Athletic Park.

How is that a negative? Foothills could be redeveloped as housing.

I like the prospect of a combined fieldhouse/stadium/grandstand replacement on the site of the current grandstand:
-combined usage might actually generate enough attendance to cover operating costs
-combined usage might actually generate enough traffic to spur development in the surround area
-already serviced by light rail
-already a transition zone between inner city and industrial, so doesn't create as much of a barrier
-proximal to the the MNP Center for other track and field training
-proximal to the BMO Center and prospective Event Center to share hotels, restaurants etc.
-could be integrated into a River Walk extension