- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
archited
Senior Member
Who's barking at the moon... it seems that City Councillors and City Administration are both ill-equipped to make a decision on the Coliseum building. I am not surprised.
Sadly I have to agree. It was a bit inept to have no plan or ideas for the old arena while the new one was being negotiated/approved/built. And of course the new arena deal ties their hands a bit with regards to uses of the old one, too.
archited
Senior Member
What we had proposed to the City was more community oriented -- that plus elements that were "junior" to Rogers Place and therefore in support of its business plan. Getting the scheme in front of the right people is one thing; getting them to understand it is another. The political faction at City Hall seems so averse to making mistakes that they end up making gigantic ones. And the administration is simply not trained to look at proposals from the right perspective.
Demolition would be such a mistake; not because of nostalgia, but because it perpetuates the sense of "temporary city" we currently have going.
Forgotten in this debate, too, is how we can maximize the potential of the LRT station there. Hockey players aren't likely to be using it much.
Forgotten in this debate, too, is how we can maximize the potential of the LRT station there. Hockey players aren't likely to be using it much.
David Staples has zero imagination. We need to stop thinking about our city's buildings as temporary and disposable.
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...-be-demolished-for-neighbourhood-to-be-reborn
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...-be-demolished-for-neighbourhood-to-be-reborn
archited
Senior Member
I wholeheartedly agree @Daveography with your statement on DS -- two sayings come to mind: "all hat and no cattle" and "a little learning is a dangerous thing". The Coliseum is a substantial structure with many valuable interior assets. It may be less than an aesthetic masterpiece on the exterior but that can be easily remedied with new adjoining development. There is substantial history here and that is also a reason for saving the structure.
archited
Senior Member
As much as I'd like to keep the existing structure, I'd want to see more numbers if I'm a city administrator, and currently, there are imprecise numbers. That makes executive level staff in any form of government quite uneasy and unwilling to support projects/proposals. Often, it leads to the language of, 'might not be worth doing' or 'we need more information' or 'we'll come back to this' or what Don said above. It's nice of them to say, we have this vision, etc etc, but you need hard numbers at the end of the day.
archited
Senior Member
It's worse than that @westcoastjos -- through a call for proposals the City (politicians) signed on to a concept that would place 4 rinks on two levels inside the existing structure (at one point they were looking at 6 rinks, but then someone with average intelligence said that if we do that there will be no room for spectators or other amenities). The 4-rink concept was endorsed by Hockey Canada, an organization that would not contribute financially to the proposal. Nearly a year ago, I wrote a letter to Mayor Iveson and to City Councillors warning them that the cost of the proposed fix would exceed $200M -- letter ignored. Northlands (another organization that either needs a complete overhaul or a phase-out (I think the latter would be more prudent for the City)) in their 6-rink proposal to the City, suggested that the build-out would be on the order of $85M. City administration (with whom I was interfacing at the time) said WRONG -- this proposal is going to cost somewhere north of $125M at a minimum and the engineer working on the costing estimate suggested that my number was probably closer than his when all was said and done.
There are many potential users for the Coliseum building that doesn't require gutting the structure to fit rinks inside (something akin to trying to put an elephant inside a canary cage). The political fix -- the unshakeable mindset -- 'we need to have a rink facility built inside the Coliseum'. This, too, in my opinion is entirely wrong-headed.
The Coliseum building is worth saving for two prominent reasons: 1. it is a substantial structure with workable interior components that, with a much more modest expenditure can be repurposed to accommodate both community and City-wide events (we had, in our proposal, suggested a 360-day per year use that enabled for flexible alternates of interior space combined with some entirely new elements not existing elsewhere in the City); 2. there is history here -- 5 Stanley cups in 6 years; the home ice for unarguably the greatest hockey player of all time (maybe that should read hockey players, plural).
I would rather see replacement of some of the political minds and salvage the Coliseum than something that is the other way around.
There are many potential users for the Coliseum building that doesn't require gutting the structure to fit rinks inside (something akin to trying to put an elephant inside a canary cage). The political fix -- the unshakeable mindset -- 'we need to have a rink facility built inside the Coliseum'. This, too, in my opinion is entirely wrong-headed.
The Coliseum building is worth saving for two prominent reasons: 1. it is a substantial structure with workable interior components that, with a much more modest expenditure can be repurposed to accommodate both community and City-wide events (we had, in our proposal, suggested a 360-day per year use that enabled for flexible alternates of interior space combined with some entirely new elements not existing elsewhere in the City); 2. there is history here -- 5 Stanley cups in 6 years; the home ice for unarguably the greatest hockey player of all time (maybe that should read hockey players, plural).
I would rather see replacement of some of the political minds and salvage the Coliseum than something that is the other way around.
By more numbers, I simply meant, concrete numbers rather than conjecture. If I had seen numbers of $200m, $125m, and $85m, it is difficult to make any type of informed decision based on that. I deal with senior executive types all the time daily and they always want things that are concrete rather than maybes and they will call you out on 'guess-estimate' numbers.
I hope that by exploring more options, they look at the existing options and price them more accurately, while looking at other options as well. I imagine they've known for quite some time the difference in pricing - papers got to hyperbole to attract readers though.
I hope that by exploring more options, they look at the existing options and price them more accurately, while looking at other options as well. I imagine they've known for quite some time the difference in pricing - papers got to hyperbole to attract readers though.
Roland Bressmer
Active Member
