Pyromancer Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 I will forego the light bulbs & thermostat and then any funding (your carbon taxes) that was directed toward these can go toward the clean-up. I bet someone could run with this & get 1000's to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 On March 30, 2017 at 5:36 PM, conundrumed said: There's a decent write up on Detroit's new venue here: https://www.si.com/nhl/2016/07/08/inside-detroit-red-wings-little-caesars-arena can't wait for the tour!! Sounds pretty exciting. Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 hour ago, conundrumed said: You mean I quoted him to respond. "Reposted" has that, "so you're saying that too" connotation. Just to be clear, lol. True enough. If we are going to be picky though, a tomato is technically a berry. I am happy to just call it a vegetable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 5 hours ago, Cowtownguy said: One has to wonder how much creosote has already spilled into the river given the flooding that has happened over the last several decades. it has gone into the water, under the river and there are traces on the other side(north side) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/creosote-discovery-concerns-west-hillhurst-homeowners-1.2494446 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 5 hours ago, conundrumed said: That's extravagant. Will it take 5 years? I'm sure the river seepage is a much smaller area based on tank size and silty/sandy morainal stoney soil which drains rapidly. For perspective, if a pipeline company did this, it would be cleaned up, like right now. At all costs. And you don't start at the middle, you contain it from the edges. Then you know what you're in for. 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 10 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said: it has gone into the water, under the river and there are traces on the other side(north side) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/creosote-discovery-concerns-west-hillhurst-homeowners-1.2494446 If it has gone under the river, much has likely gone downstream. While testing is necessary, you would think that they would just start the clean up...like yesterday. I can see a class action law suit if this is not done sooner than later. If no laws were broken and the corporation that contaminated it is long gone (legally speaking), then it falls to the city and province. KK has recently stated that the Flames will move if a new arena is not built. Either there is no strategy here, or I lack the business acumen to understand it. Of course, none of us know what has transpired behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 Just in case anyone still wants to give King credit for how he has handled the arena project, or suggest he is acting in a "classy" way.... now it is April Fools, but in his radio interview the other day King did hint several times that relocating the team was something they would have to look at if they weren't going to get the support on their project. So while this article might be a joke, the threat is not. The radio link if people want to hear further. No direct threat but a lot of not so subtle hints that he is prepared to talk moving the team over the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 33 minutes ago, cross16 said: Just in case anyone still wants to give King credit for how he has handled the arena project, or suggest he is acting in a "classy" way.... now it is April Fools, but in his radio interview the other day King did hint several times that relocating the team was something they would have to look at if they weren't going to get the support on their project. So while this article might be a joke, the threat is not. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this. Here is what he said. "There would be no threat to move, we would just move, and it would be over. And I'm trying my level best to make sure that day never comes frankly," King said during an interview on Sportsnet Fan 590 in Toronto on Wednesday. "If people smarter than us in more powerful positions than ours don't feel that we're a critical piece of the social, economic and cultural part of our city then who are we to argue with that?" http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ken-king-calgary-flames-arena-next-1.4050989 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 24 minutes ago, CheersMan said: I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this. Here is what he said. "There would be no threat to move, we would just move, and it would be over. And I'm trying my level best to make sure that day never comes frankly," King said during an interview on Sportsnet Fan 590 in Toronto on Wednesday. "If people smarter than us in more powerful positions than ours don't feel that we're a critical piece of the social, economic and cultural part of our city then who are we to argue with that?" http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ken-king-calgary-flames-arena-next-1.4050989 Im not surprised at all but to me it's dissapointing he is willing to resort to this low already. Especially when I don't think he put forward a very good idea to begin with, especially on the financing side. Just to be clear I fully recognize he is not making a direct threat and is just suggesting the possibilities. It's just disappointing this has to be out there at this point and that he has to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 11 minutes ago, cross16 said: Im not surprised at all but to me it's dissapointing he is willing to resort to this low already. Especially when I don't think he put forward a very good idea to begin with, especially on the financing side. He is only stating the obvious in a very gentle manner. We have the oldest stadium in the County. We have the oldest arena on the Continent. Its time for smart people to start figuring this out. It’s time to stop hookinging and complaining, its GO TIME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 11 minutes ago, CheersMan said: He is only stating the obvious in a very gentle manner. We have the oldest stadium in the County. We have the oldest arena on the Continent. Its time for smart people to start figuring this out. It’s time to stop hookinging and complaining, its GO TIME! Hierarchically arranging stadiums is not a solid argument IMO. All that says to me is that NHL teams have a lot of great buildings. I mean, someone has to have the oldest arena. The 'dome may be the oldest arena, but it is not terrible. I understand why the Oilers needed an upgrade as Rexall was a brutal place in many regards. Not entirely sure about the Islander's home or the Coyotes home. In the end, I suspect that none of us really know what is taking place behind the scenes. Maybe going for a $1.3-$1.8 billion building complex is just a bargaining ploy. I am not confident that many of us can speak intelligently about this issue at all. I would like to see a rational, no-drama discussion about the responsibilities of local/provincial/federal governments and professional sports teams when it comes to building new arenas. Surely, some general formula can be arranged so that teams don't have to constantly threaten to move in order to remain in a city. Hostage taking is far from decent fiscal/government management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyromancer Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 I also listened to this interview live & he came across as a cuttthroat businessman prepared to hold the city hostage. I said to myself - Well take your smug attitude & move then. Further reflection made me realize these are empty threats. As if the Flames would move from a market like this because our arena is a few years older than all others. It's not ancient like the Forum, Garden, Joe Louis were. The new arena will get built but either the Flames or the City will need to bend over. Currently no one is budging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 14 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said: Hierarchically arranging stadiums is not a solid argument IMO. All that says to me is that NHL teams have a lot of great buildings. I mean, someone has to have the oldest arena. The 'dome may be the oldest arena, but it is not terrible. I understand why the Oilers needed an upgrade as Rexall was a brutal place in many regards. Not entirely sure about the Islander's home or the Coyotes home. In the end, I suspect that none of us really know what is taking place behind the scenes. Maybe going for a $1.3-$1.8 billion building complex is just a bargaining ploy. I am not confident that many of us can speak intelligently about this issue at all. I would like to see a rational, no-drama discussion about the responsibilities of local/provincial/federal governments and professional sports teams when it comes to building new arenas. Surely, some general formula can be arranged so that teams don't have to constantly threaten to move in order to remain in a city. Hostage taking is far from decent fiscal/government management. Correct. With the oldest usually comes the least amenities and functionality which was the intent of that statement. It wasn’t that long ago when the boys used to stand around a trough in the men’s room to take a leak at our stadium. The occasional Pee fight would break out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 From what I gather, KK said if they don't get a new "arena", then they will move the team. He never said if they don't get "CalgaryNext" built, then they will move the team. That a big difference. Of course they should move if they don't get a new arena. The city is very willing to build a new arena, just not CalgaryNext. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 Just now, CheersMan said: Correct. With the oldest usually comes the least amenities and functionality which was the intent of that statement. It wasn’t that long ago when the boys used to stand around a trough in the men’s room to take a leak at our stadium. The occasional Pee fight would break out. I remember attending games at the old Winnipeg Arena. The trough element was less than enjoyable. Even worse was how freakin' steep was the climb to my nose bleeder seats. Get a few beer in you, and life became a bit more risky. You were one slippery step to the ice. From research I have read, a new arena tends to bring with it an average 25% increase in profits. Teams will always find a new arena attractive. With that said, what is the responsibility of government to professional sports teams? Is there an argument to be made that these teams should pay entirely for arena construction? Is that even possible knowing how expensive they are? What level of government should help finance the buildings, and at what percentage? I am a die hard Flames fan. I have been since they moved from Atlanta. I fondly reflect on an experience when I was a kid living outside of Alberta in their first year here. An Alberta company paid for a bus, tix, and arranged for us kids (the small town "Flames") to meet the players. It was great. The Flames also have a social and financial impact upon the city. Having live in Winterpeg when the Jets left, it is not fun losing your team. The real questions are about how these arenas get built and how they should be financed. It is hard when a lot of US cities pay outright for their areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 7 minutes 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 I don't even think it relates to the economy. Even in a good economy it's never a smart idea to spend as much public money on a project like this as the flames were asking for. I think the only way this works, especially in West Village, is of then flames contribute much more to the project. I think if the deal was an arena/stadium/clean up project, no fieldhouse, and the city picked up the tap on the clean up plus another 300million, via CRL, to the project and the flames find a way to finance the rest I think you would have a workable deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickross Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 The city has been saying its needs a new field house for awhile now so Flames were just trying to be opportunistic and include it in the proposal to satisfy both sides. If they manage to snag the Olympic bid perhaps there's enough funding there to reconsider a proposal. Until then this arena is dead in the creosote water...unless the Flames get slick and threaten to move the team to Seattle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, cross16 said: I don't even think it relates to the economy. Even in a good economy it's never a smart idea to spend as much public money on a project like this as the flames were asking for. I think the only way this works, especially in West Village, is of then flames contribute much more to the project. I think if the deal was an arena/stadium/clean up project, no fieldhouse, and the city picked up the tap on the clean up plus another 300million, via CRL, to the project and the flames find a way to finance the rest I think you would have a workable deal. Someone I know who has a lot more inside knowledge of the proposal than I do has stated that transportation will also be a concern for the West Village proposal. Not being a C-train user myself, I honestly don't know about this aspect of it. I get the sense that the proposal will be costly because it means a clean up and expansion of public transportation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said: Someone I know who has a lot more inside knowledge of the proposal than I do has stated that transportation will also be a concern for the West Village proposal. Not being a C-train user myself, I honestly don't know about this aspect of it. I get the sense that the proposal will be costly because it means a clean up and expansion of public transportation. Thats interesting because based on the proposal it looks like there would be a walking bridge from the Sunalta train station right to the arena and it would be a shorter walk than it currently is. I'd be curious to know that persons opinion. Maybe because it's on the slower of the 2 transit lines (SW to NW more popular) and would require more people transferring? i have read a large concern is the parking because so far the CalgaryNext proposal hasn't demonstrated where parking would be. It would require a complete rework of the traffic on the area though, specifically the crowchild bridge, but a lot of that is already being discussed. Not sure if city has allocated funds though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, cross16 said: Thats interesting because based on the proposal it looks like there would be a walking bridge from the Sunalta train station right to the arena and it would be a shorter walk than it currently is. I'd be curious to know that persons opinion. Maybe because it's on the slower of the 2 transit lines (SW to NW more popular) and would require more people transferring? i have read a large concern is the parking because so far the CalgaryNext proposal hasn't demonstrated where parking would be. It would require a complete rework of the traffic on the area though, specifically the crowchild bridge, but a lot of that is already being discussed. Not sure if city has allocated funds though If memory serves, the person also mentioned parking. I would assume that could be addressed with a parkade in conjunction with public transportation. It seems to me that if the NFL can swing several times more fans than the NHL, it is doable. I think they also mentioned a lack of transportation from the NW? I would assume that could be addressed by buffing up a train to take you from downtown to the West Village. Again, I am rather ignorant about public transportation in Calgary. It was a few weeks ago and there was a lot going on at the time (large social event with multiple people talking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 16 hours ago, Cowtownguy said: Sounds pretty exciting. Thanks for the link. There's a lot of good info on it in wiki and the Detroit Free Press. Why can't we be owned by the Ilitch's, hahaha. They got $250mil from the city in bonds sold to Merrill Lynch. The city intends to pay it off with increase in tax base in the pretty much "nothing was there" neighbourhood. Another $200mil for state issued bonds the Ilitch's will pay back to Comerica Bank, that bought the bonds. The initial estimate for the arena was $450mil. Actual will be around $650mil. From the getgo, the Ilitch's said they'd cover any overruns off of original, in fact, threw an extra $100mil in upgrades to it on purpose. Olympia Holdings, an Ilitch company, has brought in much investment and developers into the area. The total cost of arena and surrounding "entertainment district" is expected to be $1.2bil. Much of that is private investors Olympia has secured. Like that wasn't enough, the Ilitch's donated $40mil to Wayne State University in Detroit to build a new School for Business building... Mike Ilitch was a businessman too, just like KK. He just happened to be a really good one... Detroit just got out of bankruptcy maybe 18 months ago, so the "economic climate" argument falls on deaf ears. We have ginormous corporations in Calgary, shouldn't be hard to find investors...if you're Mike Ilitch... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 hour ago, CheersMan said: The occasional Pee fight would break out. In the immortal words of Ghostbusters, never cross the streams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 hour ago, conundrumed said: There's a lot of good info on it in wiki and the Detroit Free Press. Why can't we be owned by the Ilitch's, hahaha. They got $250mil from the city in bonds sold to Merrill Lynch. The city intends to pay it off with increase in tax base in the pretty much "nothing was there" neighbourhood. Another $200mil for state issued bonds the Ilitch's will pay back to Comerica Bank, that bought the bonds. The initial estimate for the arena was $450mil. Actual will be around $650mil. From the getgo, the Ilitch's said they'd cover any overruns off of original, in fact, threw an extra $100mil in upgrades to it on purpose. Olympia Holdings, an Ilitch company, has brought in much investment and developers into the area. The total cost of arena and surrounding "entertainment district" is expected to be $1.2bil. Much of that is private investors Olympia has secured. Like that wasn't enough, the Ilitch's donated $40mil to Wayne State University in Detroit to build a new School for Business building... Mike Ilitch was a businessman too, just like KK. He just happened to be a really good one... Detroit just got out of bankruptcy maybe 18 months ago, so the "economic climate" argument falls on deaf ears. We have ginormous corporations in Calgary, shouldn't be hard to find investors...if you're Mike Ilitch... Maybe that's the problem. Calgary only has ginormous corporations. Detriot has banking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now