Sambo
New Member
Sounds like the DQ owner didn’t have fire insurance either which makes this a nice ending.
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
outoftheice
Active Member
Apparently the City of Calgary is planning a $45 million expansion to Repsol Centre as it plans to close the Beltline and Inglewood pools. Construction could begin next year.
livewirecalgary.com
Beltline, Inglewood pool plan includes $45 million ask for Repsol leisure upgrade
Calgary could extend the support for two inner city Calgary recreation facilities, but $45 million towards an expansion of Repsol could secure inner-city aquatic service for the future. A report on…
livewirecalgary.com
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Wasn't a render of the Repsol expansion from years ago posted a few days ago in another thread?
MichaelS
Senior Member
If the neighbour's appeal of it is not successful....Apparently the City of Calgary is planning a $45 million expansion to Repsol Centre as it plans to close the Beltline and Inglewood pools. Construction could begin next year.
Beltline, Inglewood pool plan includes $45 million ask for Repsol leisure upgrade
Calgary could extend the support for two inner city Calgary recreation facilities, but $45 million towards an expansion of Repsol could secure inner-city aquatic service for the future. A report on…
From the link/plans:
1875
Senior Member
already a great facility, cant wait for this now
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
The Beltline pool was $8 per swim; Repsol is $20. (Even with Fair Entry, it's still more expensive than the regular price at Beltline.) I guess for some people it's an improvement to have better facilities; for others, swimming will become a luxury.
UrbanRED
Active Member
That's only if you're getting the single admission during prime time. It's $13.50 if you get the 10-pass card, and for monthly memberships it's $75. If swimming is THAT important, it seems like you would go reasonably frequently?
The Familia
Active Member
YourBoy007
Active Member
I like the concept here. However, before any proposal should even near fruition, the CFL needs to rethink their entire business strategy. The CFL is almost dead. And even with a potential merger with the XFL, it's still not looking very good for football in Canada. What would be a guaranteed save for the CFL would be an NFL merger and that is not likely to happen.
In regards to stadium proposals, I am a huge proponent of an indoor football stadium, however, even I know that it wouldn't be financially viable in the CFL's current state. For Calgary, a new front door would be nice, but I don't think it would be sufficient in bringing more fans into the game. The conclusion is we need indoor stadiums. Especially in places like Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg. This is Canada. Few people want to freeze their balls off outside for a football game. With indoor stadiums, the league could be more flexible with the season schedule and they could extend it if they wanted. But unfortunately, all of this is currently unrealistic. We don't have a massive football cult following as they do in the US.
Thoughts?
Stephen Ave
Active Member
The concept for the stadium area looks good. There is a lot of unused land in the area that could be better utilized.
As for the stadium being indoors, I’m torn on that. Indoor is good for our climate, but they have awful ambience and don’t look good from the outside. All things considered I’d like to see them take Ottawa’s approach, developing around the stadium and having the ends of the stadium open to the surrounding development.
The CFL can adjust their schedule to start 2 or 3 weeks earlier.
As for the stadium being indoors, I’m torn on that. Indoor is good for our climate, but they have awful ambience and don’t look good from the outside. All things considered I’d like to see them take Ottawa’s approach, developing around the stadium and having the ends of the stadium open to the surrounding development.
The CFL can adjust their schedule to start 2 or 3 weeks earlier.
Joborule
Active Member
The costs to make McMahon have a roof/retractable roof is prohibited. During the prime summer time, spectators don't want to be inside a closed venue. Football outdoors on a sunny day/evening is a top experience you can't beat for that activity. So the only time it makes sense is during the spring and late fall/winter, but there's not really any public events ongoing then to justify it.
Unless CSEC gets an MLS team, no chance it's even considered I say. Even then I doubt they will want to put down the costs in building a roof since the ROI likely isn't worth it.
Unless CSEC gets an MLS team, no chance it's even considered I say. Even then I doubt they will want to put down the costs in building a roof since the ROI likely isn't worth it.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Not an angle much-discussed publicly in Calgary, but to what degree is access to basic recreation services a "right" ? It's really not clear to me at all we as a city have ever really answered to this question is based on the weird and contradictory outcomes we have achieved. The inner city pool saga is emblematic of this.
While the Beltline and Eau Claire YMCA struggled, we have celebrated opening the largest YMCA in the world, twice in a few years. Very cool and awesome facilities, filled with all sorts of amenities and a half billion dollars of public investment. But thinking a bit deeper:
- why is having big facilities a good thing to celebrate?
- Why haven't bigger or older cities done this that we have both the first and second largest facilities?
- Are we ahead of the trend of public recreation facilities? On our own path?
- Why did these big facilities open and are are getting expansions while others are closing? What are the trade-offs?
Another problem that comes with these super-amenity rich facilities is they are ginormous. Rocky Ridge YMCA is like 50 acres or something. They couldn't have fit something so large next to the Tuscany LRT so opted for a car-dependent site to the north. This is a clear example where amenity was prioritized over accessibility to recreation. Had they opted to just copy the Crowfoot YMCA they could have build it within the transit parking area with room to spare. I wonder if we took an alternative policy path where the goal was provide a more basic level of recreation amenity, but more standardized and accessible, could we have more facilities and better accessible ones .
Giving $45M for Repsol expansion is great - but if it eliminates some/all of the clientele of the Beltline pool is that a good trade-off? It's not just a total number of people - it's a very specific, marginalized number of people that don't have access anymore. We seem to be okay putting public money into recreation so we determined that free market-levels of access are an unacceptable outcome, but we also don't go as far as to say everyone should have access either. It's a weird spot we have landed on for if access to recreation is a right or not.
darwink
Senior Member
I'd be fine with an end game that had the city take over the Eau Claire YMCA (and secure parking rights of some sort for 6 - 8 am and 4:30-10 pm to support use at the very least). The pools at the 'risk of closure' centres aren't big enough.
The Beltline their decisions on what that means is a bit of a leap. Take out the pool and figure out a good recreation use of the space. Then offer the entire space for a partner to operate. The plan for the use of the facility going forward seems half baked.
For Repsol: I don't understand why they need to expand to reconfigure their pool, teach pool and dive tank. Is there a reason the main features of the expansion seem to be:
The Beltline their decisions on what that means is a bit of a leap. Take out the pool and figure out a good recreation use of the space. Then offer the entire space for a partner to operate. The plan for the use of the facility going forward seems half baked.
For Repsol: I don't understand why they need to expand to reconfigure their pool, teach pool and dive tank. Is there a reason the main features of the expansion seem to be:
- A CEO's office with a nice view (and no longer breathing the same air as the rest of the complex/won't be able to smell chlorine?)?
- A Conference Room with a nice view?
- A new cube farm with nice views?
Last edited:
MissingMiddle
Active Member
This is where I have a problem with the City of Calgary. We're one of the least densely populated cities in the world, which makes the cost of providing services like transit and recreation astronomically high. There is no feasible way to provide utilities, transit, recreation, schools etc. to these fringe communities built with tiny density 40km from downtown, and its asinine that the City takes that responsibility on. Especially because the property taxes they pay do not even begin to cover the actual cost of servicing them.
The city should focus providing services as efficiently as possible for as many people as possible. It's not about recreation as a right, its about using tax dollars to effectively provide services, and if we're trying to build a connected, diverse, and resilient community/city, we're doing a really shitty job.
I have nothing against low density housing necessarily. Its that we choose to move so far away from the core city, expect the same level of services without remotely paying the proportional increased tax burden created, and then complain about fiscal responsibility. If you want services, live closer to them or pay for them.
For example, why are we value engineering out the Green Line downtown to 16th Ave leg, while building to Seton?? Why build Rocky Ridge YMCA when Eau Claire is closing?
zagox
Active Member
This is the problem with the unicity model. If the Town of Tuscany Rocky Ridge had to build a YMCA with their tax base, it wouldn’t look anything like what they got. The suburban councilors are a majority and they have no shame spending inner city tax dollars on benefits for the suburban fringe.