Has the inverted bowl ever been built before? My first thought when I see that video is, the angle down to the ice (or stage, or court) will be way too steep from the top levels. You will have to have your chin in your chest the whole time. Anybody else get that feeling? Just me? I am sure it was probably one of the very first things thought of with the design, but it just seems like it to me.
That's very reassuring to hear. This has been debated far too long. It is time for action. I am glad the council vote is on Tuesday.The feeling I'm getting from social media and talking to people etc.. is the debate over whether to support the arena is done, and people are accepting it's coming. Discussion is moving toward the design, or what concerts we'll be getting.
I'm kind of in that boat now. I had mixed feeling s about the old deal, but I'm okay with the new one, and while not perfect, just want it moving ahead now.That's very reassuring to hear. This has been debated far too long. It is time for action. I am glad the council vote is on Tuesday.
The City is a deal taker, not a deal maker. Trying to present the entertainment center with a business case is kind of disingenuous. The only possible analysis is to compare vs. deals in Edmonton and Seattle.I'm kind of in that boat now. I had mixed feeling s about the old deal, but I'm okay with the new one, and while not perfect, just want it moving ahead now.
The City should be concerned about the development proposal cannibalizing East Village and The Bridges. If those projects had momentum, there would be no concern.
I voted "no". At the moment I'm just so disgusted by the fact that we've put the Greenline on pause because in *might* go 10% over its $5 billion budget. We're also cutting millions from existing transit service and laying off hundreds of city workers. And now we're just supposed to vote to confirm hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for a for-profit corporation with virtually no time to debate or consult the public? All the available evidence suggests these sports arenas are economic losers. I get that there are non-economic benefits. However, we could also put that quarter-billion dollars toward other things that would probably have greater economic and non-economic benefits. I mean, let's just put it toward covering the *possible* cost overruns for the green line.
It also disgusts me that so many conservatives who are constantly talking about "getting the fiscal house in order" are falling over themselves to support stuffing hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of wealthy elites. It's like the UCP got elected and the old boys club is back to running the show.
I generally agree with all of your points. I am not opposed to *some* kind of deal, but there's just a lot of stink on this particular deal that bothers me.I can't say you're wrong, the optics and the principal (public transit vs privately funded arena) aren't good in many ways, but I'm supporting the new arena proposal for a few reasons.
- The scales are so different. $275Million compared to $5Billion. The Green Line has potential to be hundreds of millions even billions over cost if not done right. The arena could have overruns too, but it's a much smaller amount.
- The window of opportunity. While it doesn't seem like the Flames would leave, the potential is still there for them to do so if a new arena doesn't get built. The dome can still host some sports teams and the odd concert but that won't last forever (Some say the dome has another 10-20 years before it gets torn down either way) The only way to get sports teams and concerts at that point is for the city to build one themselves (not happening) or try and get a new team and be back to where we are now 10-20 years from now. Or be like Quebec city and let the team leave, and end up building a new arena with city money and without an anchor tenant in hopes of luring an NHL team
- The chance that it will spur some development in Vic Park. I'm not relying on this happening and the economics numbers are dubious IMO, but Vic Park is a dead zone that isn't going anywhere without some kind of catalyst. Only three new residential developments in Vic Park despite a building boom in the core that has seen a hundred or so projects built...….two of those 3 buildings are half empty, and were built because the underground portion was already done. All other proposals for VP have fizzled due to no sales.
Those are the three main reasons along with some intangibles, for example I would like to see some good concerts without having to go to Edmonton. I will use the arena more than I would the new library, or NMC, The zoo, Heritage Park or other public attractions the city has put money into, and I still support money going to those entities.