News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

People are probably wondering who voted for the $400 million option. That would be me. I am okay with up to $300M I want to see an new arena deal, but want to it to be reasonable. $300M is probably more than what's fair for the taxpayers, but I'm willing to give that up to get it done.
 
darwink said:
Glad I've convinced some people over time/there are other middle of the road people.
Click to expand...
I chose option #1 for that very reason. I've never seen this as a black and white issue but kind of a gray area. Do I want to hand over money to a private company that earns a profit? Normally no, but I also this this private company as a benefit to me personally, so it's a different situation. I think it needs a compromise of some sort, for the good of everybody.
 
darwink said:
Glad I've convinced some people over time/there are other middle of the road people.
Click to expand...
IMO, it all comes down to whether one wants a new arena or not. If a new arena is desired, partnering with the Flames is the only feasible way to do a new arena. The only other way to get a new arena, is for the city to pay for all of it....and that would cost the city a fortune, and if the city owned the building, property tax is taken out of the equation anyway. Owning the building would also become a liability, and unlike houses, it's not going to appreciate in value.
Potentially the city could sell the building later and re-coup some of the costs, but the money lost on it would probably be the same as the money they put in now.
Some have suggested the city build, own, and rent to the Flames but that's not going to work for the Flames, and unless it works for them, there's no point.
 
Last edited:
For $200 million a reno, relocation of McMahon could be really good. Need to try to keep it as basic as possible, but good seats, wide open air concourse:
upload_2017-9-26_16-27-35.png

http://util.io/compare-maps

Maybe squeezing the stadium further into the corner?
upload_2017-9-26_16-28-10.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-9-26_16-27-35.png
    upload_2017-9-26_16-27-35.png
    612.3 KB · Views: 345
  • upload_2017-9-26_16-28-10.png
    upload_2017-9-26_16-28-10.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 353
What about a reno of existing McMahon? On the radio yesterday someone was talking about renovating one half of McMahon stadium at a time.
 
http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2017/09/27/growing-support-for-calgary-arena-deal-survey.html
Growing support for Calgary arena deal: Survey

The survey does show the vast majority, between 68 and 73 per cent of respondents, are OK with the city providing either land, cash, a loan or some other sort of financial arrangement for the new facility.
The one caveat: it cannot increase taxes. Once tax increases are mentioned, support for the arrangement craters to 24 per cent.
Support is only lukewarm for providing an interest-free loan (41 per cent) and the city providing a significant financial contribution based on the economic benefit of a new arena (44 per cent).
Click to expand...

No surprise that most people want an new arena, the question is how to get the financing done in a fair manner.

 
BKha said:
What about a reno of existing McMahon? On the radio yesterday someone was talking about renovating one half of McMahon stadium at a time.
Click to expand...
No different than a new build really. As someone who is tall, the main issue I have is with the seating rows being too close together. To get around that problem with the existing structure, without just building the equivalent of a new grandstand right on top would be pretty hard.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top