Scotia Place | 36.85m | 11s | CSEC | HOK

Do you support the proposal for the new arena?

  • Yes

    Votes: 107 68.2%

  • No

    Votes: 40 25.5%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 10 6.4%
  • Total voters
    157
CalgaryTiger said:
;) I don't think you go public with this if there isn't a back of the napkin deal already. That third-party hasn't been doing nothing for six months. CAA ICON will get a nice fee for copying and pasting.

Maybe cost certainty has stabilized enough to essentially put the old deal back on the table. Or maybe the city is willing to go 50/50 on cost overruns.

Edit: CCA ICON Portfolio
Click to expand...
I don't think the old (original) deal works. The old deal was basically premised on the idea that the City would be made whole on it's investment (more accurately that they would be able to somewhat plausibly claim they were made whole but that's another discussion). If CSEC is willing to abide by that premise then sure a quick deal is possible but with the escalated costs that means that they're going to have to be willing to accept the city getting a larger cut of the revenue for it's larger investment. Otherwise we're going to be right back to having to hear Bettman whine at us is his nasally New York accent.
 
FCC1982 said:
www.tsn.ca

Salim Valji: City of Calgary, Flames agree to ‘fresh start’ on arena talks | TSN

The team’s ownership group (Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation) and the City of Calgary issued releases saying formal negotiations on a new arena will resume in what both parties are calling a “fresh start.” Salim Valji has more.
www.tsn.ca www.tsn.ca
Click to expand...
Hmmm I’m hoping fresh start means a modern design. Mixed use, similar to Ottawa’s new arena proposal and not like the crap we were presented with previously.
 
Changing the design will add a lot of cost, keeping the design is the smart move. They can tweak some things, but the plans were ready for building permit, so it's probably 80% done already. CSEC wants the parkade, I would be amazed if they eliminate it. Would love to see a parkade built on a neighbouring site with underground connections to the new building, but that's not likely lol.
 
Mountain Man said:
Changing the design will add a lot of cost, keeping the design is the smart move.
Click to expand...
Not if the design is what drove the cost!

Electrical transformers/switch/distribution, generators, chiller plant, ice plant, water heating, perhaps main catering kitchen, into an out building. 900-2000 fewer seats (down to 16,377-17,500). Perhaps moving half the parkade into that out building (though I am less convinced that the parkade was the problem, just that it was the parkade PLUS everything else thats bulky and heavy, compromising the street level).

Perhaps closing 5th like the old design, give the design room to breathe and decant heavy expensive things, which shouldn't be underground due to flood issues.

1666280554163.png


Anyways, I think can recover substantial volumes, prevent the need for expensive steel and conrete holding up heavy things, and reduce the free roof span by a bit, reducing the tyranny of the square law on beam strength. While at the same time allowing services within the volume to be restacked, and the street presence to be improved (fewer blank walls!).

1666281663325.png
 
Mountain Man said:
Changing the design will add a lot of cost, keeping the design is the smart move. They can tweak some things, but the plans were ready for building permit, so it's probably 80% done already. CSEC wants the parkade, I would be amazed if they eliminate it. Would love to see a parkade built on a neighbouring site with underground connections to the new building, but that's not likely lol.
Click to expand...
Having a parkade I think is the better of the 2 evils which is surface parking surrounding the arena, like is the case with the Saddledome. Lots of people still will take a car regardless if there are 3 transit lines unfortunately. I just hope they dont keep any of the parking lots and just develop all of them as fast as possible.
 
darwink said:
Perhaps closing 5th like the old design, give the design room to breathe and decant heavy expensive things, which shouldn't be underground due to flood issues.
Click to expand...
I think I remember hearing in one of the council meetings that the design team looked into moving a street (I cant remember which one) but were forbade by the Stampede. Anyway the site is 180m by 150m which is larger than the main arena portion (excluding the secondary arena and casino) of Rogers Place which is 170m by 130m. Without that parkade there is plenty of room to stack the Electrical transformers/switch/distribution, generators, chiller plant, ice plant, and water heating facilities on the south side and have room to expand the upper bowl seating.
 
Last edited:
darwink said:
Not if the design is what drove the cost!

Electrical transformers/switch/distribution, generators, chiller plant, ice plant, water heating, perhaps main catering kitchen, into an out building. 900-2000 fewer seats (down to 16,377-17,500). Perhaps moving half the parkade into that out building (though I am less convinced that the parkade was the problem, just that it was the parkade PLUS everything else thats bulky and heavy, compromising the street level).
Click to expand...
Fair enough, you have reviewed the plans far closer than I have apparently. All I was saying is that it's basically a shovel ready project, but if efficiencies can be found that reduce the overall cost, then it should be worth taking another look.
 
Duck Lightning said:
I think I remember hearing in one of the council meetings that the design team looked into moving a street (I cant remember which one) but were forbade by the Stampede.
Click to expand...
And if the city had looked at what that cost, instead of just accepting it, they could have brow beat the Stampede over that decision. As ultimately, the city leases the Stampede Grounds to the Stampede, and without the City's blessing, the Stampede would rarely if ever recieve grants from higher orders of government.

Ultimately it is just another example of the city making decisions without thinking through the costs of them, because of the management culture at the city.
 
darwink said:
And if the city had looked at what that cost, instead of just accepting it, they could have brow beat the Stampede over that decision. As ultimately, the city leases the Stampede Grounds to the Stampede, and without the City's blessing, the Stampede would rarely if ever recieve grants from higher orders of government.

Ultimately it is just another example of the city making decisions without thinking through the costs of them, because of the management culture at the city.
Click to expand...
I believe the lands north of the Saddledome are owned by the Stampede. The Stampede only leases the lands south to the river
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top