The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

I think that sums it up. I can only assume that this is about bargaining. It is also difficult for government to legitimize a new arena in this economy. Notley is cool to the idea, although willing to listen. I have heard nothing from the Wildrose Party and my guess is that they will trample the NDP (tax and spend! tax and spend! socialists, commies, left-wing pinkos!) if they drop cash on this project. Politically, it is toxic to say the least. Assuming that the province will have to buy in, does anyone have a plausible scenario of how this would work? Maybe the temporary jobs angle, I dunno.

 

I propose we SAGD the creosote out of the ground from beneath.  It's the Calgary way.

[conundrumed]

13 hours ago, CheersMan said:

 

Imagine that sheet pile wall cut off just below the top of river bank, then covered on the outside with sloped Rip-Rap similar to where the two men are standing, you wouldn't even know the sheet wall was there.  I just choose that pic to show this type of cut-off wall can be used at waters edge.

 

As you say, pipeline failures happen all the time, often in streams and water ways.  The pipeline owners or oil company's throw everything at it and its cleaned up in no time because they don't want the negative publicity.  Cost is irrelevant for them.

You had all of the steps right, just the photo was over-the-top, lol.

I also thought the TV show, "The Curse of Oak Island", wouldn't last 5 episodes if they threw good pipeline contractors at it.

I did a cutout years ago in the Red Deer River near Sundre. From driving piles, shoring, redirecting the river with mammoth pumps, replacing and pulling everything out and opening the watercourse again, we were about a week. And that was 20 years ago.

We were literally working, standing on the riverbed.

 

We also have some massive pipeline operators' head offices in Calgary. Wouldn't it be practical to sit down with them and say, "we need your help and expertise".

It's their river too. And for the massive negative perception of pipelines, the positive spin for them is a win-win for everyone.

There's tons of framework in place, where you don't have to spend for 3 years of study and research. That's called procrastinating.

 

One more thought, with Detroit's design, the contamination removal would just be part of the design! Sure you're hauling it to Tervita, you're hauling it out regardless.

[conundrumed]

2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I propose we SAGD the creosote out of the ground from beneath.  It's the Calgary way.

I still don't get why we can't "like" mod posts.

That's a frigging riot.

[conundrumed]

24 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Maybe that's the problem.

 

Calgary only has ginormous corporations.

 

Detriot has banking.

Not at all. Olympia has secured presently 7 hotels and developers for residences and restaurateurs and businesses in the area. They're pulling investment into the area, and it's going very, very well. 

They're revitalizing a dead spot, and magnetizing investors smartly to the area. 

[CheersMan]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

King is a business man and this is business. Without a new arena the Flames won't be as economically viable as they need to be so they will need to find a way to be economically viable (although I would challenge King to find a better business market than Calgary) so that all makes sense. I have no problem with that.

 

Here is why I'm so disappointed in him. It's been almost 10 years since the idea of wanting a new building was discussed, believe it was around 2008, for the Flames and King to put forward a proposal. It's taken the city less than 2 to have a discussion, mostly because I think the proposal wasn't a strong one on the financing side, but now King is playing the "well if we aren't wanted...." card. He is trying to push it back on the City like it is their fault and "doesn't understand why its taken so long" but yet it was them that took so long to come up with the proposal.

I don't believe this is a "threat" and I don't believe for a second the Flames will move it just continues to disappoint me how King is handling this. Part of the reason the Dome is so old and they are playing in it is their own fault so I just don't like how quickly he is trying to dump this on the city. Especially given they asked for a crazy amount of public money to begin with.

Baby steps, a proposal like that is extremely complicated to put together, especially in an ever changing landscape.  Lets not get hung up on how we got here (which by the way I think has been very professional to date), lets rejoice that someone has offered a vision to solve 4 HUGE problems with one fell swoop at the lowest possible price.  Let’s look to the future instead of the past.    

The Flames have estimated that the cost saving would be $310M if all 3 lumped into one (CalgaryNext).  The Flames have offered to toss in $200M as well.  That is a savings of an estimated ½ Billion dollars for the tax payer.

I’m thinking the quality of a stand alone field house would not be near the quality as one incorporated into CalgaryNext. 

The Flames have not said what if anything they would contribute to a stand alone arena.  It certainly wouldn’t be near $200M considering they still need to build a stadium.

There is no better time to clean up this site imo.  A gigantic hole will be dug in the ground for a new arena, why not dig the hole where remediation is required, hence even more cost savings towards the clean up.

 

 

[robrob74]

6 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

Baby steps, a proposal like that is extremely complicated to put together, especially in an ever changing landscape.  Lets not get hung up on how we got here (which by the way I think has been very professional to date), lets rejoice that someone has offered a vision to solve 4 HUGE problems with one fell swoop at the lowest possible price.  Let’s look to the future instead of the past.    

The Flames have estimated that the cost saving would be $310M if all 3 lumped into one (CalgaryNext).  The Flames have offered to toss in $200M as well.  That is a savings of an estimated ½ Billion dollars for the tax payer.

I’m thinking the quality of a stand alone field house would not be near the quality as one incorporated into CalgaryNext. 

The Flames have not said what if anything they would contribute to a stand alone arena.  It certainly wouldn’t be near $200M considering they still need to build a stadium.

There is no better time to clean up this site imo.  A gigantic hole will be dug in the ground for a new arena, why not dig the hole where remediation is required, hence even more cost savings towards the clean up.

 

 

 

Maybe the city just didn't like the really ugly stadiums they proposed. IT would look horrible in the landscape.

[CheersMan]

48 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

You had all of the steps right, just the photo was over-the-top, lol.

I also thought the TV show, "The Curse of Oak Island", wouldn't last 5 episodes if they threw good pipeline contractors at it.

I did a cutout years ago in the Red Deer River near Sundre. From driving piles, shoring, redirecting the river with mammoth pumps, replacing and pulling everything out and opening the watercourse again, we were about a week. And that was 20 years ago.

We were literally working, standing on the riverbed.

 

We also have some massive pipeline operators' head offices in Calgary. Wouldn't it be practical to sit down with them and say, "we need your help and expertise".

It's their river too. And for the massive negative perception of pipelines, the positive spin for them is a win-win for everyone.

There's tons of framework in place, where you don't have to spend for 3 years of study and research. That's called procrastinating.

 

One more thought, with Detroit's design, the contamination removal would just be part of the design! Sure you're hauling it to Tervita, you're hauling it out regardless.

 

Yup.  The sheet piling is free, the excavation is free (because your doing it anyway for the arena), you just need to find a place to haul and remediate the contamination. 

[CheersMan]

2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Maybe the city just didn't like the really ugly stadiums they proposed. IT would look horrible in the landscape.

 

I'm sure the city would have a large say in the final physical appearance of any proposal.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

I still don't get why we can't "like" mod posts.

That's a frigging riot.

 

Ya if this was China with creosote beneath their river, they would have moved the river already.

 

[conundrumed]

Just now, CheersMan said:

 

Yup.  The sheet piling is free, the excavation is free (because your doing it anyway for the arena), you just need to find a place to haul and remediate the contamination. 

Tervita is my guess. Unless Clean Harbours(Dirty Skies) is closer...the trick is, don't let some dirty engineer over-design the crap out of it, and don't pay a big "we're professionals" firm to frick it all up.

I know many Calgarians personally that would rip this cleanup like nothing. Now who is paying?

If I were leaching chemicals into a watercourse, as a private entity, I'd be raped 6 ways from Sunday.

Why is it okay for a public entity (the city)?

We still have to hire an architecture firm, the night is young.

Did KK even address that. In terms of saying, here's the issue, what can you propose?

[conundrumed]

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya if this was China with creosote beneath their river, they would have moved the river already.

 

That's just tactical creosote mining.

[Cowtownguy]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya if this was China with creosote beneath their river, they would have moved the river already.

 

And if it was Trump's America, they would claim that there is no creosote or even a river. Just build the darn wall and lock her up already. 

[DirtyDeeds]

5 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I still don't get why we can't "like" mod posts.

That's a frigging riot.

Peeps is not a Mod. Just saying

 

[Protestor]

I don't understand why people lump the cleanup cost into the cost of the CalgaryNEXT proposal. The cleanup needs to happen regardless, and it's the city's responsibility. So really we're just looking at the cost of the stadium itself + related amenities.

[robrob74]

23 minutes ago, Protestor said:

I don't understand why people lump the cleanup cost into the cost of the CalgaryNEXT proposal. The cleanup needs to happen regardless, and it's the city's responsibility. So really we're just looking at the cost of the stadium itself + related amenities.

 

Calgary Next put it into the proposal, if I remember correctly? That could also be what kills that project, business trying to tell govt how to do their job?

[Protestor]

5 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Calgary Next put it into the proposal, if I remember correctly? That could also be what kills that project, business trying to tell govt how to do their job?

Because it'd have to be done in order to build there. It'd be far worse to not include it - that'd come across as trying to hide the real costs of the project. But it's not like they're asking the city/province to pay for that part of the stadium - it's a cost they're already on the hook for.

[Cowtownguy]

29 minutes ago, Protestor said:

I don't understand why people lump the cleanup cost into the cost of the CalgaryNEXT proposal. The cleanup needs to happen regardless, and it's the city's responsibility. So really we're just looking at the cost of the stadium itself + related amenities.

I believe that the reasoning behind this is that the city can delay the cost by delaying the work. They can argue that the cleanup is too expensive to do alone, and bargain for help from other levels of government. If they build the arena, they need to spend the money now. Technically, you are correct that it should be a separate cost, but politicians perceive it as linked to the stadium in practice.

[Cowtownguy]

9 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Calgary Next put it into the proposal, if I remember correctly? That could also be what kills that project, business trying to tell govt how to do their job?

I am not sure if that was a smart move or not. It might have made the proposal more palatable because it gives the city more reason to assist the Flames in an arena. Having said that, should the city be against the proposal (and say, want it located elsewhere), then it raises an ugly political issue that they want to ignore. I suspect that the city wants the arena in Victoria Park given how many residents have been displaced from the area over time. 

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

I am not sure if that was a smart move or not. It might have made the proposal more palatable because it gives the city more reason to assist the Flames in an arena. Having said that, should the city be against the proposal (and say, want it located elsewhere), then it raises an ugly political issue that they want to ignore. I suspect that the city wants the arena in Victoria Park given how many residents have been displaced from the area over time. 

 

I don't know Calgary at all. Is it a central location? A place where they'd like to bring new business and opportunity?

[Cowtownguy]

28 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I don't know Calgary at all. Is it a central location? A place where they'd like to bring new business and opportunity?

The 'dome is just outside the core. It is further away from the core compared to Rogers in Van. Over the years, they moved people out in order to make space for the Stampede grounds and the 'dome. My guess is that the city wants the arena there. I assume that public transportation is decent.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, Protestor said:

I don't understand why people lump the cleanup cost into the cost of the CalgaryNEXT proposal. The cleanup needs to happen regardless, and it's the city's responsibility. So really we're just looking at the cost of the stadium itself + related amenities.

 

I agree to a point. The issues should be a separate debate because the clean should be done whether or not CalgaryNext gets built I agree there. However, to clean it up AND build CalgaryNext means you are now asking for a siginifance amount of public money PLUS using up a large chunk of what is very viable and likely pricey land the city could be selling to developers. The city has to decide do we pay for the cleanup, yes imo irregardless of CalgaryNext, then pay 100s of millions for the arena, and lose that land to a building they will own and make little money off of. That's why I think you have to consider the costs lumped together

 

[Protestor]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree to a point. The issues should be a separate debate because the clean should be done whether or not CalgaryNext gets built I agree there. However, to clean it up AND build CalgaryNext means you are now asking for a siginifance amount of public money PLUS using up a large chunk of what is very viable and likely pricey land the city could be selling to developers. The city has to decide do we pay for the cleanup, yes imo irregardless of CalgaryNext, then pay 100s of millions for the arena, and lose that land to a building they will own and make little money off of. That's why I think you have to consider the costs lumped together

 

The opportunity cost of the land is certainly a very valid thing to consider - but it doesn't make the costs of cleanup assignable to the new stadium.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, Protestor said:

The opportunity cost of the land is certainly a very valid thing to consider - but it doesn't make the costs of cleanup assignable to the new stadium.

 

From a project standpoint I agree. From an allocation of public funds perspective I do not. The amount of public funds used in any project, including CalgaryNext, should consider the entire project. 

 

 

[ABC923]

The issue is that the creosote leakage is relatively low right now. As soon as you disturb the ground to build something, the clean-up must be done.  So long as nothing is being built, the city can justify not spending the money and kick the ball down the road.

[robrob74]

24 minutes ago, Protestor said:

The opportunity cost of the land is certainly a very valid thing to consider - but it doesn't make the costs of cleanup assignable to the new stadium.

 

I guess if you're able to sell it off for the price of the cleanup, bit by bit and then get land taxes off of them, then that could be better off for the city?