darwink
Senior Member
They were. They gave a week deadline apparently, or they'd move to Houston.
Scotia Place | 36.85m | 11s | CSEC | HOK
- Thread starter Meikkhaell
- Start date
Disraeli
Active Member
That's a disgrace. I'm a Flames fan but I would have told them to pack their bags and have fun being what, like the seventh most popular sports team in Houston?
CBBarnett
Senior Member
My guess would be surface parking lots they control independent of the Stampede for a few extra bucks.
This kind of blatant grift of the public is super annoying. We have two publicly-subsidized, profitable corporations that have gotten huge subsidies for decades from the city right next to each other - the Stampede and CSEC. Half of the issues are they refuse to work together as they want to reap the benefits alone, this despite the public helping both of them out. The result is stupidly inefficient and an enormous waste of tax dollars and tax potential for all the land that's soaked up by these two tax-free and the public subsidy for their facilities on top of that.
They always use language in this kind of arena deal as one of "community builder" or "partner" between public and private interests. The reality is different as CSEC's interests are to milk as much benefit from the public as possible. It's legalized extortion of public dollars and lands to benefit a very few wealthy elites.
DougB
Senior Member
Gifting more land to CSEC wouldn't be a big deal. The city hasn't been able to develop that land and it needs to be raised above floodplain, so it is basically worthless. The Flames couldn't possibly do a worse job trying to kickstart development than has the City. The only concern is that this could compete with East Village.
CMLC apparently wants $8M to manage the project. A private sector project manager could likely do it for far less. The project manager has no influence on the design.
No way should the Flames get more cash. The organization can up ticket prices, parking rates etc. to cover the over-run.
I wouldn't think the Flames have much leverage at this point, other than the upcoming municipal election. The City and Province are under extreme financial stress, professional sports in general are in a secular downtrend and who knows what the market for live events will be post-COVID. Moving the team is an empty threat.
CMLC apparently wants $8M to manage the project. A private sector project manager could likely do it for far less. The project manager has no influence on the design.
No way should the Flames get more cash. The organization can up ticket prices, parking rates etc. to cover the over-run.
I wouldn't think the Flames have much leverage at this point, other than the upcoming municipal election. The City and Province are under extreme financial stress, professional sports in general are in a secular downtrend and who knows what the market for live events will be post-COVID. Moving the team is an empty threat.
darwink
Senior Member
As long as the land isn't under the bus barns. Not sure if the city directly owns any of the other land around there. Isn't most of it Remington?
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
This is making me almost angry enough to considering voting for Farkas, whose ideological recklessness and unprecedented ability to burn bridges might make him the least likely to give in to CSEC. That said, all conservatives have a pretty consistent tendency of preaching fiscal responsibility in opposition and practicing crony capitalism in power. Not sure Farkas would necessarily be different.
I will also note that I was one of the few "No" votes in the poll for this thread way back in 2018 or whenever it first went online. Everything about this has stunk from the start, from a responsible governance standpoint to an urban design/planning standpoint. I'd rather the Flames pack up and leave than get stuck into some multi-decade agreement that drains the city of 100s of millions of public funds and turns Victoria Park into some insular, suburban-style corporate entertainment destination. That would only undermine the redevelopment of the area.
I will also note that I was one of the few "No" votes in the poll for this thread way back in 2018 or whenever it first went online. Everything about this has stunk from the start, from a responsible governance standpoint to an urban design/planning standpoint. I'd rather the Flames pack up and leave than get stuck into some multi-decade agreement that drains the city of 100s of millions of public funds and turns Victoria Park into some insular, suburban-style corporate entertainment destination. That would only undermine the redevelopment of the area.
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
I can't imagine that surface parking lots would be part of any long term deal. The whole idea is to trigger development around the Event Centre and fill in all those vacant lots. If necessary, public parking should be incorporated in the underground of new buildings only. Of course, surrounding development will take several years but there should always be an eye to eliminating surface parking.
doughflow
New Member
We should all be up in arms about the request to get CMLC off the project.
CMLC is there to ensure that our tax dollars are used properly to build something for all Calgarians, not just the Flames owners. That's a non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. Super disappointing, but not surprising to hear that that is what CSEC wants.
CMLC is there to ensure that our tax dollars are used properly to build something for all Calgarians, not just the Flames owners. That's a non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. Super disappointing, but not surprising to hear that that is what CSEC wants.
Koumori
New Member
I disagree, it is a big deal... they are not developers, builders or urban planners. The second anything they want to do becomes complicated they'll turn it into a parking lot. They should have as little input into anything outside of the interior of the building as possible. I wish they didn't have an option on the bus barn land to begin with... more is out of the question. Give them an inch and they'll strip anything of primary public benefit or city interest out. I think that's why they want to oust CMLC, they want the project managed to put their interests first.
DougB
Senior Member
The project manager manages the project, not design. CMLC would have zero input into planning.
While CMLC has done a great job planning East Village, it allowed massive scope creep and the area is at a complete standstill. The City, via the Stampede Board, has been trying to kickstart Victoria Park redevelopment for decades to no success. CSEC couldn't possibly do worse than the collection of parking lots currently occupying the area.
The City should dig in its heals around contributing extra cash and sharing in additional cost overruns. As I said earlier, if the business case is so sound, CSEC can up its ticket and food service pricing.
Disraeli
Active Member
CMLC was the one who put out the RFP for design consultant. They obviously have input into planning.
Urb
Active Member
Apparently CSEC wants to add some major upgrades that weren't in the original budget. These include upgrades to the corporate boxes and A/V/tech changes to the tune of $70 million. The City told CSEC to go ahead and add them at their cost, but CSEC wants the City to cover half.
I disagree some of your points Doug.
1) Design - As Project Manager, CMLC facilitates the design direction and makes recommendations to ownership (City and CSEC) based on budget constraints. They will have a very large impact on overall look and feel. Based on their track record, I think this is a very good thing. Without their involvement, we'd get more Stampitecture.
2) East Village - The EV is not at a complete standstill, as Bosa is about to deliver another 250 units to the area. There are several other major projects in the various entitlement and planning stages (most of the existing parking lots). Triovest has one one by the NMC that is rumoured to break ground next year.
I disagree some of your points Doug.
1) Design - As Project Manager, CMLC facilitates the design direction and makes recommendations to ownership (City and CSEC) based on budget constraints. They will have a very large impact on overall look and feel. Based on their track record, I think this is a very good thing. Without their involvement, we'd get more Stampitecture.
2) East Village - The EV is not at a complete standstill, as Bosa is about to deliver another 250 units to the area. There are several other major projects in the various entitlement and planning stages (most of the existing parking lots). Triovest has one one by the NMC that is rumoured to break ground next year.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Is the parkade at the Saddledome going to be demolished?
DougB
Senior Member
Bosa started ~2014 and slowed down construction due to market conditions. It would have made the investment decision prior to that, so possibly around 2013. M2 is the only new project in EV since the recession hit. I'll believe anything new only when shovels are on site. I like EV, but even with hundreds of millions of public money it hasn't delivered that many new residential units or spurred development of privately owned land.
A project manager would have an opinion as to whether scope can be delivered on budget, and provide suggestions as to how to recover to budget. If CMLC is advising on scope addition, it would be a conflict of interest.
I'm surprised that CSEC would try to upgrade corporate boxes as that market is in decline as companies have been reducing their entertainment budgets for many years. Again, if CSEC sees potential in upgraded boxes, it should be able to charge more from them and fund the upgrades on its own. Tech changes make sense, but with the cost of technology almost certainly declining over time, it shouldn't lead to cost increases in a project that hasn't borken ground.
Urb
Active Member
Agree to disagree. You clearly aren't in the industry.