Do you support the proposal for the new arena?

  • Yes

    Votes: 102 67.5%

  • No

    Votes: 39 25.8%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 10 6.6%
  • Total voters
    151
darwink said:
The concept would have worked if they had pitched it on the Stampede Grounds/Victoria Park tbh. When the field house with 7500-10,000 seats is finished, we will all be able to see first hand how with 10 way better renderings, some explatory video, and a bit of dreaming the project would have worked.

Now, the pitch has to be set up all backwards from what we got. Four parallel tracks ...
1. What is included in a field house, how much will it actually cost for the scope, and what are the potential benefits (tourism) [we eventually got somewhat close to this in 2019-2020]
2. What would it cost to renovate McMahon to be functional for another 50 years [we eventually got this in 2018]
3. What would it cost to keep the Saddledome going until 2040 or 50 [we never got a detailed thing]
a. What would it cost to retrofit a roof that could hold loads necessary for it to accommodate all current arena shows [I think we only got speculation]
4. What would a facility that meets all of the above needs cost, what costs would it help avoid, and what benefits would it have over and above the base cases above (like a covered Football stadium!) [ we got one page of a power point with some of this info]

Instead of the above, we got a pitch that assumed every member of the public and City Council knew inherrently like the Flames did that this was a good idea! We weren't told a story of where we've been, where we want to go, and how this will get us there in an innovative and economical package.
Click to expand...
It's true that the initial pitch of the project is what made it DOA. The selling of the need and gains from it was incredibly weak. If it was pitched around Stampede grounds as you suggested, that by default may have given it a bit more curiosity from the public and the city. Not having to deal with the West Village contamination issue would've eliminated one major strike against it.

Personally though, I feel the fieldhouse no matter what should be built at the McMahon lands since you'll have a major tenant in the University of Calgary to make use of the fieldhouse component on a regular basis. Plus logistics with parking/access is more favorable there.
 
Joborule said:
since you'll have a major tenant in the University of Calgary to make use of the fieldhouse component on a regular basis
Click to expand...
This is still very much up in the air. The university in general does not like paying for things, and does not have money to pay for extra things. Unless a commitment saves money or someone else is paying for it, they aren't generally in for it.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what the difference in cost is for a covered stadium? I'm hoping someday Calgary will maybe have an MSL franchise, and we can't do it easily without a covered stadium given they play in winter months.
 
Surrealplaces said:
I wonder what the difference in cost is for a covered stadium? I'm hoping someday Calgary will maybe have an MSL franchise, and we can't do it easily without a covered stadium given they play in winter months.
Click to expand...
Beams twice as long need to be 4 times as strong. Every row of seating is what, at least an extra 1m of span? 8,000–>10,000–>15,000 for arenas are large lumpy cost increases due to needing not only extra vertical span but also horizontal lift. So for stadiums you start larger in every dimension and keep getting larger and larger.
 
The Familia said:
So what happens if CSEC doesn’t sign an official letter of withdrawal by tonight? Is the contract binding and they have to build? Does it just sit in a state of limbo? Is the deal automatically void?
Click to expand...
Now we wait to hear whether they withdrew or not; the suspense!
 
It is going to take significant will power from all sides to breath life into this again. It does not help that most of the parties involved in the first negotiation and agreement are no longer around (i.e. Ken King with CSEC, a new city council). CMLC was pushed out of the picture late in the process.
If there is a new design and a new agreement then most certainly it is going to be at a higher cost and completion timeline that will be pushed out further this decade.
 
Disraeli said:
As far as i'm aware there is only one ramp on the NE side which you can then use to access the other entrances on the concourse level. I imagine it's a pain in the ass if you show up at the wrong entrance and have to go around to the NE so it could very well be that that staff carried your friend up the stairs.
Click to expand...
Sorry for responding to such an old conversation, but she clarified this for me a few months back. She went there for a concert, and the entrance with a ramp was reserved for certain ticket holders. The staff wouldn't make an exception for her, so she was forced to be carried up the stairs at another entrance.
 
JonnyCanuck said:
It is going to take significant will power from all sides to breath life into this again. It does not help that most of the parties involved in the first negotiation and agreement are no longer around (i.e. Ken King with CSEC, a new city council). CMLC was pushed out of the picture late in the process.
If there is a new design and a new agreement then most certainly it is going to be at a higher cost and completion timeline that will be pushed out further this decade.
Click to expand...
With the money that's already been put in for the design, and the work up to November on getting the DP approved, I figure there's not much of an incentive to try to do a new design at this point? The costs of what it will take to actually build is now more solidified, and that's where the current stalemate lies.

I imagine the DP is still active correct? So if CSEC and the city agree on a new deal to cover the finances, they can pretty much head straight into groundbreaking at the point right? If that's the case, then it seems it'll just come down to when material costs hopefully drops down enough that CSEC is comfortable that the cost certainty of the project won't continue to escalate in a manner that the overruns could be more than they imagine.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top