The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[DirtyDeeds]

On 6/7/2017 at 11:28 PM, Cowtownguy said:

BTW, according to CBC, only Calgary and Edmonton have publicly owned facilities. The other 5/7 are privately owned arenas. Edmonton needed revitalization downtown. Not sure we can make the same justification in Calgary. Different model.

Just a side note ... How can anyone seriously take what the CBC has to say, on taking & using public funds, to do their business. 

[jjgallow]

On 2016-04-21 at 0:21 PM, cross16 said:

 

I'm not criticizing them for create a proposal. I'm criticizing them for creating a very weak proposal after spending over 5 years telling people we need a new arena but we "just aren't there yet". This feasibility study should have taken place years ago and IMO the Flames never should have put forth a proposal that rested on such flimsy and out to lunch ideas and numbers. This was very poorly planned on King's part.

 

Food for thought, Katz bought in the Oilers in 2008. 2 years later he had a report for Edmonton City council to debate, within 5 years he had the funding approved and in just over 8 will have a new building. Its been 5 or 6 years now and the best King has managed is a feasibility study to show his own idea was crappy and he has said publicly multiple times, there is no plan B. 

 

I'm all for a new arena, but its pretty hard to get around the fact that King and co have done a very poor job going about this new arena and their proposal. I'm not shocked, King doesn't do a good job with many things so just add this to the list. 

 

Nailed it.

 

Nobody seems to actually know Why we need arena.   You just hear unsubstantiated noise that we obviously do.

 

The dome is a fantastic building.  It's got better architecture than most NHL arenas, and I dare say this proposal too.

 

It doesn't have enough washrooms.    Because the Flames took them out and put in too many "exclusive" areas.  They'd do that in a new building too.  That's not a structural issue, it's a business issue.

 

 

You know why Garth Brooks doesn't come here?

 

He can't hang is equipment from the roof because when we "upgraded" the jumbotron we used up all the remaining structural load.

 

That's what this whole thing is about, and it's a complete joke.  I can't believe people are falling for it.

 

 

Duh.... upgrade the jumbotron again with lighter, Better technology.

 

Or...leave it.   Who cares? 

 

Are we honestly to believe that Nobody can engineer a couple steel beams in there so that equipment can be hung?  Seriously????  

 

That's ridiculous.  Completely ridiculous.    We've lost millions of concert money because they can't add some steel beams, in one of the most engineer-dense cities in the world.    Come on.    This would be a complete non-issue if politicians understood even the most basic of physics or actually consulted with an IMPARTIAL engineering firm.

 

And if we just can't wrap our heads around a couple of steel beams:  AGAIN..WHO Cares?     We're talking about Technology.   Which is getting Smaller and Lighter ...  Every Day.    The New concerts of tommorrow don't have heavier equipment.  They have lighter, smaller, more mobile equipment.   We're trying to solve a problem which won't exist in a couple years (which is the real reason nobody's fixed it).

 

Then all this talk of "the dome doesn't measure up to NHL standards".   OMG.

 

Look.  The dome is awesome.   It needs more washrooms.  It used to have them.  So fix it.

 

"NHL Arena Standards":      WHAT ARE THOSE?

 

Sounds like a Unicorn to me.

 

The NHL has given Zero thought to its arena standards.  Zero.  Case in point:   What size should the rink be?    They haven't bothered looking at this very basic question seriously, and they should have 20 years ago.   

 

Look:   The rinks are too small.  Players big.  players fast.   Game is getting systematic, and boring.    We've lost the creativity, the complex strategies, and the display of skill because the NHL hasn't Looked at its rink standards.

 

This is the absolute WORST time to build a new rink.  Case in point:  Edmonton did it (in case you need proof)

 

Hello NHL, look at your rinks.  Do a study.  Figure out what your future is before you ask taxpayers to pay for what will essentially be a museum of your past.

 

 

"Multi-Use Site?"     --OMG that is ridiculous.  Zero thought to to the traffic and logistics.  

 

 

And the Elephant In the Room:   Hello, Calgary's just been through its worst bust maybe Ever,  and it's not over.  There are people Starving in this City.  There are smart, educated, hard working people Barely surviving.  

 

Seriously?  

 

Embarrassing.

 

 

 

 

[CheersMan]

6 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Nailed it.

 

Nobody seems to actually know Why we need arena.   You just hear unsubstantiated noise that we obviously do.

 

The dome is a fantastic building.  It's got better architecture than most NHL arenas, and I dare say this proposal too.

 

It doesn't have enough washrooms.    Because the Flames took them out and put in too many "exclusive" areas.  They'd do that in a new building too.  That's not a structural issue, it's a business issue.

 

 

You know why Garth Brooks doesn't come here?

 

He can't hang is equipment from the roof because when we "upgraded" the jumbotron we used up all the remaining structural load.

 

That's what this whole thing is about, and it's a complete joke.  I can't believe people are falling for it.

 

 

Duh.... upgrade the jumbotron again with lighter, Better technology.

 

Or...leave it.   Who cares? 

 

Are we honestly to believe that Nobody can engineer a couple steel beams in there so that equipment can be hung?  Seriously????  

 

That's ridiculous.  Completely ridiculous.    We've lost millions of concert money because they can't add some steel beams, in one of the most engineer-dense cities in the world.    Come on.    This would be a complete non-issue if politicians understood even the most basic of physics or actually consulted with an IMPARTIAL engineering firm.

 

And if we just can't wrap our heads around a couple of steel beams:  AGAIN..WHO Cares?     We're talking about Technology.   Which is getting Smaller and Lighter ...  Every Day.    The New concerts of tommorrow don't have heavier equipment.  They have lighter, smaller, more mobile equipment.   We're trying to solve a problem which won't exist in a couple years (which is the real reason nobody's fixed it).

 

Then all this talk of "the dome doesn't measure up to NHL standards".   OMG.

 

Look.  The dome is awesome.   It needs more washrooms.  It used to have them.  So fix it.

 

"NHL Arena Standards":      WHAT ARE THOSE?

 

Sounds like a Unicorn to me.

 

The NHL has given Zero thought to its arena standards.  Zero.  Case in point:   What size should the rink be?    They haven't bothered looking at this very basic question seriously, and they should have 20 years ago.   

 

Look:   The rinks are too small.  Players big.  players fast.   Game is getting systematic, and boring.    We've lost the creativity, the complex strategies, and the display of skill because the NHL hasn't Looked at its rink standards.

 

This is the absolute WORST time to build a new rink.  Case in point:  Edmonton did it (in case you need proof)

 

Hello NHL, look at your rinks.  Do a study.  Figure out what your future is before you ask taxpayers to pay for what will essentially be a museum of your past.

 

 

"Multi-Use Site?"     --OMG that is ridiculous.  Zero thought to to the traffic and logistics.  

 

 

And the Elephant In the Room:   Hello, Calgary's just been through its worst bust maybe Ever,  and it's not over.  There are people Starving in this City.  There are smart, educated, hard working people Barely surviving.  

 

Seriously?  

 

Embarrassing.

 

 

 

 

That was a terrible rant.

 

Sorry you missed the reasoning why we could use a new arena, it's been the talk of the city for several years now.

 

Put a larger beam in the roof? The roof doesn't have any beams nor can there be a beam put in, it's not built that way.  The roof is held up by post tensioned cables spanning the arena and it is at capacity.  And no, they can't put larger cables in.

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, CheersMan said:

Sorry you missed the reasoning why we could use a new arena, it's been the talk of the city for several years now.

 

Well I'm glad you at least apologized, for saying I missed the reasoning, and then providing no additional reasoning of your own at all.    That's what everybody's been doing.

 

Yes, there's been a lot of talk about it.  I hate to explode your world, but lots of talk is actually not a reason to spent 1.8 billion.

 

Quote

 

Put a larger beam in the roof? The roof doesn't have any beams nor can there be a beam put in, it's not built that way.  The roof is held up by post tensioned cables spanning the arena and it is at capacity.  And no, they can't put larger cables in.

 

?

Who said anything about integrating the steel beams into the parabolic roof (other than a really lame consultant, perhaps)?.  Why would anyone do that?   I've heard that arguement before...it's like someone just tried to determine the absolute worst possible structural solution out of many really easy solutions, and then complained about how problematic it was.  You just need a way to raise some lights.   Heck, it can even be portable.  It's 2017.   It's not hard.  It's just that these travelling concerts can't be expected to lug steel beams around with them on their tours.   It's on us to have half a wit about it.  Figure it out.  

 

p.s....if they just can't wrap their heads around erecting some lights (omg), and they refuse to get a modern jumbotron,  throw some heat tracing on the roof.  Cop-out, but would also work just fine.

[MAC331]

7 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Well I'm glad you at least apologized, for saying I missed the reasoning, and then providing no additional reasoning of your own at all.    That's what everybody's been doing.

 

Yes, there's been a lot of talk about it.  I hate to explode your world, but lots of talk is actually not a reason to spent 1.8 billion.

 

 

?

Who said anything about integrating the steel beams into the parabolic roof (other than a really lame consultant, perhaps)?.  Why would anyone do that?   I've heard that arguement before...it's like someone just tried to determine the absolute worst possible structural solution out of many really easy solutions, and then complained about how problematic it was.  You just need a way to raise some lights.   Heck, it can even be portable.  It's 2017.   It's not hard.  It's just that these travelling concerts can't be expected to lug steel beams around with them on their tours.   It's on us to have half a wit about it.  Figure it out.  

 

p.s....if they just can't wrap their heads around erecting some lights (omg), and they refuse to get a modern jumbotron,  throw some heat tracing on the roof.  Cop-out, but would also work just fine.

You wouldn't want to see a new arena ? There has been a lot of emphasis from the City and developers to the East end of the City. I think a new Arena with a Village atmosphere for Vic Park would be another catalyst for the East side development. If the Stampede takes the Saddledome down and devotes that location towards enhancing their efforts we could have two major developments that advances our City facilities for activities into first class status.

[jjgallow]

1 minute ago, MAC331 said:

You wouldn't want to see a new arena ? There has been a lot of emphasis from the City and developers to the East end of the City. I think a new Arena with a Village atmosphere for Vic Park would be another catalyst for the East side development. If the Stampede takes the Saddledome down and devotes that location towards enhancing their efforts we could have two major developments that advances our City facilities for activities into first class status.

 

Someday, yes.   But there is a time and a place for everything.

 

To be totally honest, the proposed arena...it's kinda ugly.   Especially when you compare it to the saddledome.

 

We can do better.  And I'm willing to wait for it.   Like, at least until our economy is stable, and when we know what size rink to put in.

[DirtyDeeds]

7 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Someday, yes.   But there is a time and a place for everything.

 

To be totally honest, the proposed arena...it's kinda ugly.   Especially when you compare it to the saddledome.

 

We can do better.  And I'm willing to wait for it.   Like, at least until our economy is stable, and when we know what size rink to put in.

A few capital spending projects like an Arena, would do wonders to help us get over this economy crunch. It has lasted too long and we need some jobs happening for the unemployed and those struggling. Waiting until it is over will just cost more with higher material & labour costs.

[jjgallow]

2 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

A few capital spending projects like an Arena, would do wonders to help us get over this economy crunch. It has lasted too long and we need some jobs happening for the unemployed and those struggling. Waiting until it is over will just cost more with higher material & labour costs.

 

We should have thought of that in 2014, when we had a good credit rating.

 

What ever happened to the high speed rail between here and Edmonton?

 

I'm all for capital spending projects, but ones that have tangible economic benefit.  In the dirty 30's, we built that glenmore damn.   Massively increasing the allowable population here, providing renewable energy which was significant at that time, and making many flood areas safe.

 

An old-style hockey rink?  uh...

[DirtyDeeds]

2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

We should have thought of that in 2014, when we had a good credit rating.

 

What ever happened to the high speed rail between here and Edmonton?

 

I'm all for capital spending projects, but ones that have tangible economic benefit.  In the dirty 30's, we built that glenmore damn.   Massively increasing the allowable population here, providing renewable energy which was significant at that time, and making many flood areas safe.

 

An old-style hockey rink?  uh...

Which one?

 

The last one I heard of was a teenagers dream. He managed to get some marketing hype on the project but that was about all.

 

The distance of Calgary to Edmonton is best served by a major highway and airplanes. Railroads for such travel is too expensive to build and can't compete with prices(airplanes are faster and cheaper). Trucks for freight don't have a time limit that hauling passengers do, so can more efficiently haul the freight. Albertan people love to drive, they are conditioned to it.. They are not fond of taking trains for business or for pleasure.

[DirtyDeeds]

9 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

We should have thought of that in 2014, when we had a good credit rating.

 

What ever happened to the high speed rail between here and Edmonton?

 

I'm all for capital spending projects, but ones that have tangible economic benefit.  In the dirty 30's, we built that glenmore damn.   Massively increasing the allowable population here, providing renewable energy which was significant at that time, and making many flood areas safe.

 

An old-style hockey rink?  uh...

Just for the record all arenas have tangible benefits. Not just for the city or town that builds them. The increased ridership on city transportation for events. The parking tickets alone for those who can't fathom the concept of parking places.(see the other post about 7100 tickets in Edmonton Arena area since it was built.(what is the cost of parking illegally these days, anyone?) Restaurants, bars, towing companies..lol cabs, are just a few of the outside areas that benefit from events at hockey games.

[jjgallow]

2 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Which one?

 

The last one I heard of was a teenagers dream. He managed to get some marketing hype on the project but that was about all.

 

The distance of Calgary to Edmonton is best served by a major highway and airplanes. Railroads for such travel is too expensive to build and can't compete with prices(airplanes are faster and cheaper). Trucks for freight don't have a time limit that hauling passengers do, so can more efficiently haul the freight. Albertan people love to drive, they are conditioned to it.. They are not fond of taking trains for business or for pleasure.

 

It's an actual thing.  I could get the links if you want, but the best info I have isn't on the web.

 

We already have the land in place.  For the most part, we know where it's going.   It's in high level long range maps/designs for both cities and the province.

 

It's a thing.

 

And fyi:   It will cost a fraction of the price of flying, and it will take a fraction of the time (when you include boarding, takeoffs, landings, and airport proximities).

[DirtyDeeds]

Just now, jjgallow said:

 

It's an actual thing.  I could get the links if you want, but the best info I have isn't on the web.

 

We already have the land in place.  For the most part, we know where it's going.   It's in high level long range maps/designs for both cities and the province.

 

It's a thing.

 

And fyi:   It will cost a fraction of the price of flying, and it will take a fraction of the time (when you include boarding, takeoffs, landings, and airport proximities).

No JJ it is a pipe dream. Every plan I have seen in the last 50 years is just a pipe dream that never gets the go ahead. Until you can get people to give up driving it will remain just that... a pipe dream to discuss over a bottle of good whiskey.......

[jjgallow]

2 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Just for the record all arenas have tangible benefits. Not just for the city or town that builds them. The increased ridership on city transportation for events. The parking tickets alone for those who can't fathom the concept of parking places.(see the other post about 7100 tickets in Edmonton Arena area since it was built.(what is the cost of parking illegally these days, anyone?) Restaurants, bars, towing companies..lol cabs, are just a few of the outside areas that benefit from events at hockey games.

 

says the Flames.

 

http://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stadium-economics-noll-073015/

[jjgallow]

Just now, DirtyDeeds said:

No JJ it is a pipe dream. Every plan I have seen in the last 50 years is just a pipe dream that never gets the go ahead. Until you can get people to give up driving it will remain just that... a pipe dream to discuss over a bottle of good whiskey.......

 apology accepted for calling it a teenager's marketing hype.

 

High speed rail is an actual thing, and it is taking over in Canada.   Not even a discussion.

 

Things would be more advanced if we were in one of the "blessed" provinces, that can afford to spend billions and billions on pilot project wind generation, for example (why they now have no birds).

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/05/19/wynne-is-all-aboard-21b-high-speed-rail-project.html

 

p.s..  "pipe dream" must be used carefully in this province.

[DirtyDeeds]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

says the Flames.

 

http://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stadium-economics-noll-073015/

says the City of Edmonton:

A City of Edmonton report on Rogers Place and the arena district boasts that the nine sold-out Garth Brooks shows generated $42 million into the local economy.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/garth-brooks-concerts-pump-42m-into-edmontons-economy/

Maybe  Mr Stanford from your link should consult with The City of Edmonton who sees the financial benefits.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said:

 Mr Stanford from your link should consult with The City of Edmonton who sees the financial benefits.

 

Or maybe he should consult with the Oilers, who actually released the report?   The City of Edmonton's removed the report publicly.

 

Oh wait...he already consulted with hundreds of Cities and sports teams who also claimed that the decisions they made should keep them hired and elected longer.

 

Oh wait, Mr Stanford isn't the lone Wolf.  I just provided one link in the hopes that the obvious would kick in.   I was wrong.  He's the accepted majority opinion on the matter by the Majority of economists.  So that also wouldn't matter.

 

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017-05-01/the-economics-of-subsidizing-sports-stadiums/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/01/31/publicly-financed-sports-stadiums-are-a-game-that-taxpayers-lose/#2838ee7c4f07

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/why-funding-new-sports-stadiums-can-be-a-losing-bet-1.1378210

 

But why listen to economists, when there's so many great elected officials (who also oppose it), and 100% biased sports teams, who we can rely on for these decisions?

 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Just for the record all arenas have tangible benefits. Not just for the city or town that builds them. The increased ridership on city transportation for events. The parking tickets alone for those who can't fathom the concept of parking places.(see the other post about 7100 tickets in Edmonton Arena area since it was built.(what is the cost of parking illegally these days, anyone?) Restaurants, bars, towing companies..lol cabs, are just a few of the outside areas that benefit from events at hockey games.

 

Not to mention those who work in them. 

Will the saddldome still hold events?

[DirtyDeeds]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Or maybe he should consult with the Oilers, who actually released the report?   The City of Edmonton's removed the report publicly.

 

Oh wait...he already consulted with hundreds of Cities and sports teams who also claimed that the decisions they made should keep them hired and elected longer.

 

Oh wait, Mr Stanford isn't the lone Wolf.  I just provided one link in the hopes that the obvious would kick in.   I was wrong.  He's the accepted majority opinion on the matter by the Majority of economists.  So that also wouldn't matter.

 

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017-05-01/the-economics-of-subsidizing-sports-stadiums/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/01/31/publicly-financed-sports-stadiums-are-a-game-that-taxpayers-lose/#2838ee7c4f07

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/why-funding-new-sports-stadiums-can-be-a-losing-bet-1.1378210

 

But why listen to economists, when there's so many great elected officials (who also oppose it), and 100% biased sports teams, who we can rely on for these decisions?

 

7100 parking tickets alone JJ..

Oh wait that can't be right the economist from the US who writes about football stadiums says it ain't so.

 

Oh well both sides just feed their positions with surveys and studies for whoever feeds and agrees with their positions anyway.

 

Truth is without the Arena we did not get Garth Brooks here. Add to that the people from Calgary who would have spent entertainment dollars here to see him chose to go to Edmonton and spend their dollars along that route and in that city.

 

This is where your economist falls flat.. He says things like dollars spent on entertainment would be spent on other entertainment any way. He doesn't account for spending it in other cities...

 

and before you continue JJ with your condescending "Oh waits" read the article you linked where he admits:

 

Quote

 

Basketball and hockey arenas are a better deal for cities, he said. “Arenas are used more often.”
 

 

[phoenix66]

New Guy running for Mayor "gets it" as far as I'm concerned...  Looks like Nenshi may finally have some competition

 

 

 

"Smith backs a new hockey rink as long as it doesn’t cost the taxpayers “a whack of dough.”

But he says it’s about culture and entertainment as much as hockey.

“When you look at the acts that bypass Calgary and go up to Edmonton, you really see we’re in a deficit on that. You’ve got our locals going to see shows, so the money goes into Edmonton’s economy, not ours. We need to think about this more broadly, not just as a rink for the Flames.”

 

 

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/braid-bill-smith-shrugs-off-nenshis-barbs-the-mayoral-race-is-on

[zima]

Can some one tell me how many mosques and Islamic centres are being built with tax payers money all these schools and centres are all supported by Calgary taxpayers  and tons of money go into them I don't think any money is coming back to the city any time soon Just saying.

[jjgallow]

8 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

7100 parking tickets alone JJ..

 

And there we have it....possibly the worst, most ill-conceived reason to build anything.   Because the Proof that it doesn't logistically work (parking tickets) may generate some tax revenue (which will trickle through zero businesses).

 

ps....while he said hockey arenas are better ("because they are used more"), that's not what's being proposed.  What is being proposed is a logistical nightmare that will mess up traffic and actually prevent many forms of entertainment because the entire center could not be used all at one time.  It's not logistically possible where it's located. A "hockey arena" is what we have now.

[Cowtownguy]

The economic benefit argument is a weak one because most, if not all, economists know they are serious losers. Most Canadian NHL teams pay for their own arenas. If, however, they were shown to be lucrative investments, then where do we stop? There are hundreds, even thousands of businesses that contribute to this city and would love the city to pay for their head offices. What makes the Flames special? If given a choice between cleaning up the West Village and buying a business a new office (i.e. hockey arena), what is the best choice?

 

I would love a new arena. I am just not sure why the city should pay for it and how much they should pay if they do. Did the Flames not realize decades ago that they would need an upgrade? How did this just become an issue now? A ticket tax could have been implemented in 1983 like many US sports teams to. Ever been to Texas? Well, you have paid for a lot of sports infrastructure.

[cross16]

I'm also a little tired of the Garth Brooks example coming up so much as a means to justify a large city investment. Even if you assume the 40 million number is correct, likely it is not, you are holding up a very extreme example. Does anyone really think one of the world's biggest superstars is going to come to a new arena and play 4 or more shows here every year in order to generate that 20 million for the economy? (half of what Edmonton received) When you consider the interest cost on the financing alone for what CalgaryNext, or any new building, is going to be it's likely the City would net out very little money on that, so using an extreme example is just that extreme. Even if Calgary had been able to host the Garth Brooks concerts, were are not talking about a city changing event here. 

 

to be clear though I'm actually for an new arena and i'm for the city, via my tax dollars as I am aware, paying for a portion of that. I just don't think the City should write a blank cheque, needs to be fair 

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I'm also a little tired of the Garth Brooks example coming up so much as a means to justify a large city investment. Even if you assume the 40 million number is correct, likely it is not, you are holding up a very extreme example. Does anyone really think one of the world's biggest superstars is going to come to a new arena and play 4 or more shows here every year in order to generate that 20 million for the economy? (half of what Edmonton received) When you consider the interest cost on the financing alone for what CalgaryNext, or any new building, is going to be it's likely the City would net out very little money on that, so using an extreme example is just that extreme. Even if Calgary had been able to host the Garth Brooks concerts, were are not talking about a city changing event here. 

 

to be clear though I'm actually for an new arena and i'm for the city, via my tax dollars as I am aware, paying for a portion of that. I just don't think the City should write a blank cheque, needs to be fair 

I think its more the big picture, and sometimes it takes extremes to make people see anything .

Even if you scale it back,   you had Calgarians and close area, spending money in Edmonton ..  eating at edmonton restaurants, staying in Edmonton hotels..shopping at Edmonton stores while they were there ..

Broken down , thats 4.7 M per concert on average for city economy--  even if a concert only puts 1M into the economy,  how many Million per year is not being spent here as a result?

Not to mention , all star games, grey cups, another draft..  bigger events .

 

Im with you , I'm not saying blank cheque either , but they do definitely seem to be overlooking what benefit really means.  I'll reserve judgement until i see what City Council agrees to , but if it doesn't include anything to do with the Football stadium they have totally missed the boat 

[The_People1]

Sort of related, I hope the new arena will incorporate solar power technology to help bring down long term energy costs.  Some of these new style solar panels are nearly indistinguishable from traditional roof material.

 

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/solarroof

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/powerwall