News   Apr 03, 2020
 1K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 873     0 

Calgary Stadiums and Arenas

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
2,460
The whole concept of the bid is also to avoid large other costs. The IOC wants to avoid the crazy showpiece.

Nothing is stopping the government from building other projects like airport transit (would need to extend the Greenline or Blueline plus the airport link). Since it isn't necessary to do the games, shouldn't put it in this budget. Also, it is still in study, so shouldn't put it in a budget.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
2,460
It's by no means the boldest proposal ever put forth.
Haha no. Though I expect the same voices who expected crazy infrastructure investment, over top everything that is planned right now outside of the bid, would balk at the cost of the larger bid.

There is a big constituency that just rejects the cost things come in at, and are really mad that things aren't cheaper. We saw this with the green line in a big way — requests to keep it out of the way of traffic and faster, then complaints about how much that cost and how long it was to keep it within the budget envelope. May as well be tilting at windmills.
 

Surrealplaces

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
7,927
Reaction score
21,667
Location
Calgary
Totally agree about the bait and switch. That's what I would do if I were on the committee or with the Flames. It's a shame we can't just build a new stadium. Given that every other CFL city has done that, and we have the second highest attendance, you'd think it would be doable.
So new plan in today's hosting plan. https://www.calgary2026.ca/

No renovations to the Grandstand

McMahon Stadium – ‘Revitalizing’ renovations to accommodate 40,000 for opening and closing ceremonies, 25,000 permenant seats: New entry plaza, ticketing and Fan Zone; New team zone and concourse patio; New and renovated washrooms; New permanent seats, food prep kitchen and concessions; and, New operations centre. I think the CBEC report had a $40-50 million renovation plan that this sounds like. Can't find it now.

Community Sized Arena, new – 5,000-6,000 seat arena, used as secondary hockey venue, replacement for existing facilities with additional twin ice surface. I think this is an ideal bait and switch - secure public funds for this ($150-$200 million), then the Flames come to the table and say they will build the same thing—but bigger—for a contribution the same size.
 

Disraeli

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
207
Reaction score
536
For the Olympics, with what we're getting compared to what it costs, I don't know if its worth it. Here, near the bottom, they have their cute little pie chart for how the $3,000,000,000 public investment would be used. What about the remaining $2.6B+? What does that go towards? I see a lot of the major stuff outlined in just the $3B. For $5.6B we should be getting more than just some renovations. That should be more than enough to fund a new arena in VP and an entertainment district around it, AND put on a successful Olympics.

They say $1.6B goes towards new housing and upgrading/building venues. Here, on pg 8, they list 10 venues, of which two are new and 8 are planned to be upgraded.
Based off what improvements they say they'll make and if I was able to find news articles with specific numbers, Here's my 5-minute estimation for what those 10 venues should roughly cost:
New Community Arena: $200M. New Curling Centre: $25M. McMahon Upgrades: $50M. Oval Upgrades: $70M. BMO & Stampede Park: $30M. Winsport Track & Hill: $40M. Nakiska: $25M. Canmore Nordic: 20M. Whistler: $50M?
Together that adds up to $510M.

I read they want to build about 2800 housing units. Assuming that makes up the rest of the $1.6B, that's a cost of about $390,000 per housing unit, just to build it. I don't know the specifics of everything, but to me that sounds high, especially for "affordable housing."
Another news article said this housing should cost $600M to build, which is a bit more reasonable. But where does the remaining $490,000,000 go? That's basically enough in and of itself to build a pretty good new NHL arena. (T-Mobile Arena in Vegas, a beautiful building imo, was $375M).

If this $1.6B is truly only going towards venues and housing, and they're spending it responsibly, shouldn't it be budgeted for more like $1.1B? Even after considering inflation and even if some of my estimations are off, I don't see how that $500M just vanishes, and I definitely don't see how they spend $3B on all of this and then STILL need $2.6B on top of that. To do what? Turn a few billionaires into multibillionaires?
There's no megaprojects coming out of this. If they had some high speed rail line between Calgary and Edmonton, or a new arena, or an LRT connection to the airport, or some other massive infrastructure in the plans, then I'd understand the budget being this high. But there's none of that and yet it costs this much.

It doesn't add up.
Haha no. Though I expect the same voices who expected crazy infrastructure investment, over top everything that is planned right now outside of the bid, would balk at the cost of the larger bid.

There is a big constituency that just rejects the cost things come in at, and are really mad that things aren't cheaper. We saw this with the green line in a big way — requests to keep it out of the way of traffic and faster, then complaints about how much that cost and how long it was to keep it within the budget envelope. May as well be tilting at windmills.
I agree. The bid proposal did a good job of presenting a cost conscious budget for hosting the games that would leave Calgary with some strong-- albeit modest-- legacy infrastructure. People need to remember that there are infrastructure improvements not directly pertaining to hosting the games that could come forth as things progress. For example, if Stampede Park is to be the centre of the Games then it wouldn't surprise me if this spurs (no pun intended) some of the improvements being talked about by the CMLC and the Stampede Board.
As for the arena, it would be pretty daft for the city to include a publicly funded arena in the bid proposal when they are currently trying to convince a private company to pay for most of it. Not to mention that 'public funds' and 'arena' in the same sentence does not sit well for most people in this country.
 

Meikkhaell

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
286
Reaction score
227
Yup, for a city trying to convince a private company to pay for this thing, they aren't really doing themselves any favors haha. This came out today, some Councillors are getting behind the idea of a two-arena complex as part of this Olympics plan, with the medium-sized arena and new NHL arena in one building. I don't really know if we need a secondary arena. The Hitmen and Roughnecks have an average per-game attendance of 7500 and 11,000 respectively, so a 5000 seat arena wouldn't even benefit either of them. Other than them, I don't know who else could possibly even use it. We don't have any other teams that could put a 5000 seat hockey arena to good use.

I'd rather they just build the NHL arena and forget about this secondary arena. At least the $200M, if put towards an NHL arena, would be spent on a venue that would see continuous use and consistently full capacity. And yeah, agree, making it part of the olympics budget is shooting ourselves in the foot.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
2,460
Maybe that is the point, showing that there is a need for a smaller arena, and the smaller arena would cost a certain amount, and for the same amount, one could partner with an unnamed organization, and build a bigger one.

The place for that negotiation to be made isn't in the bid budget. Actually building the smaller arena would be a huge failure.
 

Surrealplaces

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
7,927
Reaction score
21,667
Location
Calgary
I agree with you guys. It seems pointless to build a smaller arena, when the 200M could just go towards a full scale new one.....which is what everyone wants. People are of all opinions on how much money should be put towards a new arena due to the Flames owners being billionaires, but overall everyone wants a new arena.
 

AccUnit

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
157
Reaction score
294
Location
Calgary
Just took a lunchtime flip through the proposal. Few thoughts:

1. Ski jumping in Whistler: Makes sense but is a little disappointing the towers at winsport won't get some love. Also, selfishly I really want to see the ski jumping and now likely won't.
2. McMahon reno: This part seems like a stretch, not sure if the old girl is worth saving that being said the location is sweet so who knows.
3. absence of new arena: feels like they intentionally left this piece out to de-politicize the whole thing. I guess that makes sense however you'd have to think a new rink would be in the works. Also, what's the deal with a mid-sized arena? Do we need this?
4. New field house: FINALLY - glad to see this one is included in the plans. One of those pieces of city infrastructure we don't have. I mean seriously Edmonton has 2........ 2!
5. No curling facility: Not sure why this was left off the plan. Seems like a big piece to still have TBD.

Overall I'm a fan. I've seen governments spend more on less and selfishly really want to attend and be part of the action. It's been awhile since the city had some fire and I think this would give us a good kick in the ass.
 

Operater

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2017
Messages
817
Reaction score
109
Hi,
I don't denie the fact that We Need NEW FACILITIES. Yes some places are living out their Last Years really. Yet at the same time I can't Fault the
Flames Groups for wanting as much as Possible in One Central Location Makes Economic Sense yet if it Saves Money its Well Worth It.. There is
a Vote Coming Up Shortly. If the Vote is Positive, then the City and the Flames Group have an Opportunity to Sit Down and Work out a Deal that
everyone can live With. If the Vote is a "No Deal Vote" and IT could very well happen, then Both sides need to take a Good Hard Look at Options
and see where they are. There is a Lot of MONEY & POLITICS at Stake Here I See a Lot of Items in the Press. Time to Get Serious.

Tnx,
Operater.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
2,460
Might that be a problem if the city ever floods again?
If you design it right you can bath tub the entire site. Having ice level below grade they’ll need a good way to get rigging down, a big ramp, a huge elevator, etc.
 

Reecemartin

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
136
Reaction score
132
https://flamesnation.ca/2018/10/05/...erings/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

So some new renders were released for the arena. I neither love it nor hate it, I like the plentiful windows and all the Flames decorations. The red highlights help a lot too. In the picture on the left, that roof just feels like it extends way too far outwards for me.

Just a little thing, but this design doesn't seem to be overly tall either. That doesn't bug me from a design sense, but that would likely mean most of the actual arena is underground. Might that be a problem if the city ever floods again?

I like this "Inverted Bowl" concept, as seen in the bottom right picture, where instead of getting further and further from the ice the higher up you go, the upper bowl is basically a series of levels right on top of each other. This could make the arena feel a lot more intimate, and bring everyone close to the action. I wonder though, if that sacrifices capacity? The Saddledome is one of the bigger arenas in the NHL, in one of the smaller markets, and yet it always seems to be quite full. If they cut back capacity in this new arena from 19.3k in the 'Dome to, say, 18k, that'll make for a surge in ticket prices. You can't even go to a game in Winnipeg for under $70/seat most of the time, I'd hate to see that here.

There's a lot of towers I've never seen before in the top right picture, I wonder if they just plopped those there to make it look good, or if those are all part of the plan.

Nice to finally see some traction on this.

View attachment 159621
Hate to say it but Calgary is a pretty big city. Big cities aren't cheap.

Stadium looks good though.
 

Cowtown

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
976
Reaction score
1,391
Exactly. The convention centre/arena is a different situation than the field house and Arts commons. There's a much easier path for funding when it comes to the arena and convention centre, and in my mind should be the priority.
 

Top