The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[Cowtownguy]

The city has constructed a clear question about whether Calgarians want to host the games or not. The question does not include any contingencies such as the price tag of the event. It is a blank cheque. The plebiscite, however, is non-binding. If people are in favour of hosting the games, the city can spend whatever they wish to spend. If Calgarians say no, they can go forward anyways. What is the point of the vote then? Heads they do what they want to, but tails, and they do what they want to. I wonder if council will press forward with the bid when I suspect a simple majority say they are against it. We have already spent $30 million dollars thinking about this bid, and initial estimates place the overall costs being $4.6 billion. Yeah, right. 

[robrob74]

Are the jobs it creates to build and manage projects enough? It would employ how many over the next how many years? Thus it’ll put money into the economy and if they make the city pretty enough, get more tourism later?

[MAC331]

10 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

Are the jobs it creates to build and manage projects enough? It would employ how many over the next how many years? Thus it’ll put money into the economy and if they make the city pretty enough, get more tourism later?

You know when one stops and thinks about this possibility of combining a new Arena together with some other parts, returning to the Calgary Next project makes sense. The Arena as a priority with an area for Football that could be used for opening and closing ceremonies then converted. The timeframe from now until 2026 leaves plenty of time to do it right while other plans could be made for the Saddledome and McMahon sites. Alberta not just Calgary does and will need the jobs an endeavor such as this could create.

[The_People1]

45 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

Are the jobs it creates to build and manage projects enough? It would employ how many over the next how many years? Thus it’ll put money into the economy and if they make the city pretty enough, get more tourism later?

 

Well, yes and no.  There isn't enough experienced talent in Alberta alone to engineer and design these world class facilities.  Probably 50% of it will be shipped out of the country even.  Only the hard labour jobs are safe here.

 

[cross16]

12 hours ago, CheersMan said:

They can be two separate issues, but as an opportunist, an Olympic bid would seem like a logical time to give the city some long term benefits.  We managed to get a beautiful Saddledome arena amongst other things in 1988. This go around our elected officials are willing to settle for a 5-6K arena then farm out the prestigious events to another city.   

That is what an Olympic bid should look like for me and my city, it should benefit our community long term, not just lipstick on this or that.  Sending tens of thousands of people to other cities for them to profit on the prestigious events while we foot the bill seems ridiculous.

 

The only person who suggested hockey could be played in Edmonton (and again it was a possibility put forward and nothing else) was Nenshi. No other Councillor has suggested this and as I said Bidco put is in their proposal that all hockey will be played in Calgary. Bidco is proposing that Whistler host the ski jumping/nordic combined, but outside of that all events are to take place in Calgary or area (ie Nakiska, Canmore etc). The whole talk about we are going to let other cities host events and we'll pay the bill is incorrect, based on the draft proposal done by Bidco. 

 

For me the Olympics don't change the debate about the arena, and that is public vs private funds and the debate for me right now is the Flames are not paying enough and IMO the Olympics should not change that. Taking public funds out of the Olympic "fund" and distributing them to an arena in order to reduce the amount the Flames should pay is not an agreeable solution to me and I don't view that as opportunistic. All that does is take away from another project that I think is as probably as critical as a new arena (like an LRT to the airport for example) that actually will probably survice the long term needs of the city in a better/more appropriate way. The City is going to pay for a new arena anyway so whether the olympics come here or not is a bit iirelevant to me and i'd rather see money that comes to the city for the Olympics, which is money you would normally not receive, go to better long term projects like an LRT, trans portion/transit upgrades etc etc etc. The infrastructure money that the city receives will not just specifically be for the venues/facilities to host the games but also for needed and necessary infrastructure required to host the games. I think the legacy of the Vancouver games is less the venues they received but more the huge investment they got into their city infrastructure. This for me is the main benefit Calgary could get by hosting the games. 

 

The 16 days the Olympics last for should not cloud the fact that a new arena is a venture whose profits will predominately be used by private industry so that private industry needs to pay accordingly. 

 

 

[MAC331]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Well, yes and no.  There isn't enough experienced talent in Alberta alone to engineer and design these world class facilities.  Probably 50% of it will be shipped out of the country even.  Only the hard labour jobs are safe here.

 

Not sure I would agree with you here. We have world class engineering firms here in Calgary and access to anyone.

[Horsman1]

Dominion Bridge on Spiller raod built the bridge to Prince Edward Island as qwell as many bridges and roads in war infested africa ,, There is more tthan enough local talent to build an arena.. The Coral is slated to be torn down before the next Stampede.. Personnally.. I think we missed a great opportunity to reshape downtown Calgary by not moving the Stampede to Balzac and selling the grounds to Amazon for their new western head office.. They could have built a beautiful Entertainment center there as well at the same time.. The naming rights alone would have damn near paid for the building

[conundrumed]

Dominion Bridge is/was a Quebec-based company.

Remember how hosting the Olympics almost destroyed Montreal's economy?

Yes, that Dominion Bridge. I personally know equipment operators that would paint one backhoe 4 times and charge for 4.

In '93, Dominion Bridge personnel offered me a payoff, as I was an inspector.

They did not build the Confederation Bridge in PEI, trust me on this one. Not a chance.

IF they're building bridges in Africa, they found a place with lower standards and should stay there.

I'll stop there...but if that is your example, it isn't a good one. I've worked around them, and at least a 1/2 dozen friends worked on the Confederation Bridge.

That project was a dutch company.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, Horsman1 said:

Dominion Bridge on Spiller raod built the bridge to Prince Edward Island as qwell as many bridges and roads in war infested africa ,, There is more tthan enough local talent to build an arena.. The Coral is slated to be torn down before the next Stampede.. Personnally.. I think we missed a great opportunity to reshape downtown Calgary by not moving the Stampede to Balzac and selling the grounds to Amazon for their new western head office.. They could have built a beautiful Entertainment center there as well at the same time.. The naming rights alone would have damn near paid for the building

But I do apologize Horsman, didn't mean to jump all over you.

Not a Dominion Bridge fan. Thought they were out of business, honestly.

Are they back? And still Quebec-based? They were bought out and eventually shut 'er in I thought.

Quebec has a bunch of great companies, so it isn't being Quebec-based.

The tech coming out of Quebec is our research province, hands down. World class. A pretty good chance they are at or near 1 for the public sector internationally in a variety of fields regarding technologies.

Big fan of them not separating

Transfer be damned, they built something world class in innovations.

It wasn't all wasted.

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Not sure I would agree with you here. We have world class engineering firms here in Calgary and access to anyone.

 

We have world class oil and gas engineering.  That's about it.

 

 

[Cowtownguy]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

We have world class oil and gas engineering.  That's about it.

 

 

What about all of these architecture firms that design buildings around the city? They may be branch plants with profits going to the US, but they are still Canadian. I would assume that an arena is not much different than most other buildings. Is there something that I am missing?

[The_People1]

15 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

What about all of these architecture firms that design buildings around the city? They may be branch plants with profits going to the US, but they are still Canadian. I would assume that an arena is not much different than most other buildings. Is there something that I am missing?

 

I would argue we have good engineers for the basics but not "world class".  We would have to farm out a lot of the work to other places like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, US, Europe, etc.  

 

Parts are probably all imported from China no matter what.  Hardly anything is manufactured locally.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

I would argue we have good engineers for the basics but not "world class".  We would have to farm out a lot of the work to other places like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, US, Europe, etc.  

 

Parts are probably all imported from China no matter what.  Hardly anything is manufactured locally.

Yeah so what if expertise and parts come from other places  What's your point ?

[The_People1]

27 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Yeah so what if expertise and parts come from other places  What's your point ?

 

Point is, the job creation numbers for  Calgarians for the Olympics and CalgaryNext are overly optimistic.  So debating the merits of the Olympics (especially), from the angle of job creation for locals is  a losing one.

[MAC331]

11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Point is, the job creation numbers for  Calgarians for the Olympics and CalgaryNext are overly optimistic.  So debating the merits of the Olympics (especially), from the angle of job creation for locals is  a losing one.

Hard to see where such capital projects would not benefit the local economy both preconstruction, during and after completion. Calgary can use the new facilities going forward after 2026. This is as much for Calgary to stay relevant in the future as it is for job creation during the process. Alberta needs these types of projects happening even more so now with lower economic output from the oil and gas industry.

[The_People1]

1 minute ago, MAC331 said:

Hard to see where such capital projects would not benefit the local economy both preconstruction, during and after completion. Calgary can use the new facilities going forward after 2026. This is as much for Calgary to stay relevant in the future as it is for job creation during the process. Alberta needs these types of projects happening even more so now with lower economic output from the oil and gas industry.

 

Or we could spend money on roads.  Build all the Stoney Trail overpasses.  Widen 14 St.  Build bridges like Southland Drive into Quarry Park would be nice.  You know, spend money on infrastructure projects that we need and know majority of the money will stay local.  

[MAC331]

9 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Or we could spend money on roads.  Build all the Stoney Trail overpasses.  Widen 14 St.  Build bridges like Southland Drive into Quarry Park would be nice.  You know, spend money on infrastructure projects that we need and know majority of the money will stay local.  

Is that not all happening as we speak ? Not sure what school of economics you adhere to but very seldom will you capture all the money to stay local especially with projects of this magnitude.

[The_People1]

14 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Is that not all happening as we speak ? Not sure what school of economics you adhere to but very seldom will you capture all the money to stay local especially with projects of this magnitude.

 

So i'm saying, seldom will you capture all the money to stay local.

 

And you say no, seldom will you capture all the money to stay local.

 

 

[cross16]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Or we could spend money on roads.  Build all the Stoney Trail overpasses.  Widen 14 St.  Build bridges like Southland Drive into Quarry Park would be nice.  You know, spend money on infrastructure projects that we need and know majority of the money will stay local.  

 

An Olympic bid would likely include money for things such as this. Usually money given to host cities for infastructure extends beyond just the venues needed to put the games on. One of the last legacies of the Vancovuer games is the new sea to sky highway as well as their expanded Transit systems (specifically a Sky Train to the airport and extended West Coast express to more parts of the GVA). Calgary would likely be the recipient of infrastructure money for projects we would not get for many years to come should the Olympics be a thing. 

 

that being said, I don't disagree with you at all that numbers are being overshot and it's fair to questions just how much of a benefit it would be. 

[Cowtownguy]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

An Olympic bid would likely include money for things such as this. Usually money given to host cities for infastructure extends beyond just the venues needed to put the games on. One of the last legacies of the Vancovuer games is the new sea to sky highway as well as their expanded Transit systems (specifically a Sky Train to the airport and extended West Coast express to more parts of the GVA). Calgary would likely be the recipient of infrastructure money for projects we would not get for many years to come should the Olympics be a thing. 

 

that being said, I don't disagree with you at all that numbers are being overshot and it's fair to questions just how much of a benefit it would be. 

Did they really need to expand the sea to sky highway? Who did that benefit? While the scum train to the airport was needed, it was going to happen at some point anyways. I thought that the West Coast Express was simply on existing CP railway. Last I used it, the trains started in Maple Ridge. How far does it go now? Are people now coming in from Hope to work in Vancouver?

[cross16]

1 hour ago, Cowtownguy said:

Did they really need to expand the sea to sky highway? Who did that benefit? While the scum train to the airport was needed, it was going to happen at some point anyways. I thought that the West Coast Express was simply on existing CP railway. Last I used it, the trains started in Maple Ridge. How far does it go now? Are people now coming in from Hope to work in Vancouver?

 

Accidents are down 23% on the Sea To sky Highway. Still a high numbers, but not the "killer" highway it was prior. Also that area has seen an increase in tourism. 

West Coast Express goes to Mission. 

 

Was it wroth it, hard to say as everyone is going to have their own criteria. As you say, yes they likely would have done these projects "at some point" but when? That is kind of the point of what i'm saying in that while yes those are projects that a city will do eventually, the Olympics can make help make eventually a reality. Depends on whether or not people find value in that or not. 

 

 

 

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

An Olympic bid would likely include money for things such as this. 

 

 

Right.  I'm just saying, if ALL the money for the Olympics could be spent on infrastructure (rather than building new venues and doing needless upgrades to Olympic plaza, UofC oval, C.O.P., etc,) then more of that money would stay local.

[cross16]

45 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

Right.  I'm just saying, if ALL the money for the Olympics could be spent on infrastructure (rather than building new venues and doing needless upgrades to Olympic plaza, UofC oval, C.O.P., etc,) then more of that money would stay local.

 

For sure. Only counter is Calgary would likely never receive those funds if the Olympic bid is not successful. Bit of a catch 22. 

[robrob74]

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Point is, the job creation numbers for  Calgarians for the Olympics and CalgaryNext are overly optimistic.  So debating the merits of the Olympics (especially), from the angle of job creation for locals is  a losing one.

 

But you do get an influx of construction workers who need to live while there. Thus spending into the economy. But perhaps only direct living expenses.

[Cowtownguy]

Too bad the federal government didn't follow the FCM's suggestion to give municipalities revenue from a 2% fuel tax years ago. That way, they wouldn't have to scrounge up money by hosting the Olympics or expanding new communities. I believe we are the only OECD nation that doesn't have a mechanism to fund cities. 80% of Canadians live in cities and they are the front line for most of society's problems.