The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread

[phoenix66]

7 minutes ago, The_Snowbear said:

Sorry To be blunt but it was Farkas that Started all this if it hadnt been for him this deal would be signed sealed and delivered

Agreed ..and like I mentioned i respected him so much up until this 

Not because he's voting no..but for his reasons

He at no time calls it a bad deal..he refers over and over to " not the right time "

No respect for his constituents, just pure political posturing for his own mayoral run in. 2 years ..and he's doing it knowing darn well he will be outvoted , it's personal gain 

 

They say the city manager will announce by 1 the flames response to the extension request, but they already subtly responded with a Tweet last night saying " excited for the vote tomorrow" ..well played ken..well played lol

[The_Tribal Chief]

Well you Know Farkas is up in arms to short of time crapola now what totally Floored me to the ground was They Did a interview with him and he had the Gull to say well if it is
Such a Good deal why cant it wait and we can admire the beauty of it

[cross16]

I can respect Farkas because he's been consistent. he's held town halls in his ward to talk about the arena and he campaigned on Fiscal prudence from day 1, voted against the Olympics etc etc. So him voicing displeasure over the arena deal fits with what he has always said and thus his principals and I can always respect that. 

 

It's not only him too Evan Wolley has been equally as vocal about wanting more time and in fact it was him who put forward the original idea to push it. 

[phoenix66]

12 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I can respect Farkas because he's been consistent. he's held town halls in his ward to talk about the arena and he campaigned on Fiscal prudence from day 1, voted against the Olympics etc etc. So him voicing displeasure over the arena deal fits with what he has always said and thus his principals and I can always respect that. 

 

It's not only him too Evan Wolley has been equally as vocal about wanting more time and in fact it was him who put forward the original idea to push it. 

but hes not voicing displeasure over the deal .. hes voicing displeasure over voting for it now .. 100% optics 

His lone comment about how the money can be spent better elsewhere is a bold faced lie , as the money being spent cannot be spent elsewhere . he simply needs more time to calm his No's down and a week isnt long enough 

and Wolley.. also contemplating a mayoral run .. seeing a trend here

 

Farkas loses my respect , because until now he was ok being the dissenter voice and not playing politics.. this is a move of a politician with an eye on how many votes this will affect 

 

and the bold is also part of my argument -- did he not take feedback from his town hall as to what his people wanted in any deal ?  did n he not fight to ensure these were in the walking papers the negotiation committee was given ?

either tell us why it didnt meet your points .. or vote for it if it did .. consultation has already been done 

[phoenix66]

I ran against this guy , and wanted to beat him so bad,.,., but this is the best fact filled reasoning for why he is voting Yes i can find 

 

Farkas has done remotely remotely similar for his No vote . except to say , we need more time ..

 

https://www.shanekeating.ca/2019/07/23/an-update-on-the-event-centre/

[cross16]

29 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

but hes not voicing displeasure over the deal .. hes voicing displeasure over voting for it now .. 100% optics 

His lone comment about how the money can be spent better elsewhere is a bold faced lie , as the money being spent cannot be spent elsewhere . he simply needs more time to calm his No's down and a week isnt long enough 

and Wolley.. also contemplating a mayoral run .. seeing a trend here

 

Farkas loses my respect , because until now he was ok being the dissenter voice and not playing politics.. this is a move of a politician with an eye on how many votes this will affect 

 

and the bold is also part of my argument -- did he not take feedback from his town hall as to what his people wanted in any deal ?  did n he not fight to ensure these were in the walking papers the negotiation committee was given ?

either tell us why it didnt meet your points .. or vote for it if it did .. consultation has already been done 

 

Where we differ, is I don't think it's simply playing politics when you are sticking to the values you've had since you been in council. Ok to disagree with those values and disagree with him but at least he's being consistent IMO. Also he did say the biggest reason why he is voting against it is part they have other needs and also due to the fact he's not satisfied they have discussed flood mitigation enough.

 

I have no idea where Woolley stands and he's all over the map so him standing up against it I do find a little strange. another thing I like about Farkas is at least he is voting no, not just campaging for more time to likely vote the same way he was always going to. He's made a decision but I owuld agree Woolley is probably just playing the political game here and would wind up voting Yes anyway. 

 

I like politicians who try to remain consistent and stand for certain things like Farkas regardless if I agree or disagree with this point. 

[phoenix66]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Where we differ, is I don't think it's simply playing politics when you are sticking to the values you've had since you been in council. Ok to disagree with those values and disagree with him but at least he's being consistent IMO. Also he did say the biggest reason why he is voting against it is part they have other needs and also due to the fact he's not satisfied they have discussed flood mitigation enough.

 

I have no idea where Woolley stands and he's all over the map so him standing up against it I do find a little strange. another thing I like about Farkas is at least he is voting no, not just campaging for more time to likely vote the same way he was always going to. He's made a decision but I owuld agree Woolley is probably just playing the political game here and would wind up voting Yes anyway. 

 

I like politicians who try to remain consistent and stand for certain things like Farkas regardless if I agree or disagree with this point. 

i agree thats where we likely differ .. I think he is straying from his previous stands 

 

should be a Moot point tho , from what i've been able to read, should be about 10-4  Yes 

[phoenix66]

 

 

No delay ..(surprise surprise ).. vote will be today 

[robrob74]

It sounds like a good deal to me. The city needs a big player in the entertainment district in order for it to maintain its credibility. The city benefits if the whole district takes off, so it’s a deal to help everyone. People can flock to it after games, concerts, etc.

 

weren't musicians bi-passing Calgary due to the venues?

[phoenix66]

12 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

It sounds like a good deal to me. The city needs a big player in the entertainment district in order for it to maintain its credibility. The city benefits if the whole district takes off, so it’s a deal to help everyone. People can flock to it after games, concerts, etc.

 

weren't musicians bi-passing Calgary due to the venues?

yup..constantly 

[travel_dude]

52 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

It sounds like a good deal to me. The city needs a big player in the entertainment district in order for it to maintain its credibility. The city benefits if the whole district takes off, so it’s a deal to help everyone. People can flock to it after games, concerts, etc.

 

weren't musicians bi-passing Calgary due to the venues?

 

There would be taxable business outside the actual venue.  Food, stores, etc.

Creating an entertainment district would bring in those businesses.

Just build a spaceship in a crappy area, and you get bars and hookers.

I suppose you can build a Flames owned office tower and charge rent to the city for their workers. 

[Carty]

Council votes 11 yes, 4 no for a new arena in Calgary...

 

[The_Tribal Chief]

Finally it can be put to bed

[cross16]

As I’ve said I don’t like the deal and wish the city did better but at the end of the day it’s done and I’m happy to see the vision and future come together. 

 

Exciting time for Calgary and will be cool to see how that areas comes together and the plans for the building. I look forward to my first game there already. 

[travel_dude]

16 minutes ago, cross16 said:

As I’ve said I don’t like the deal and wish the city did better but at the end of the day it’s done and I’m happy to see the vision and future come together. 

 

Exciting time for Calgary and will be cool to see how that areas comes together and the plans for the building. I look forward to my first game there already. 

 

So far away.

Many entertainment districts actually draw people down, not just for the games.

Hopefully they can develop it right.

[The_People1]

So this thread began 5 years ago.  Man, where did time go?

 

What an interesting read back at the comments and suggestions from back then.  CalgaryNEXT was presented to the public 4 years ago.  We pretty much had a stalemate for 4 years and then today, we've approved a plan forward and we've circled back to the Victoria Park/Stampede area.

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

So this thread began 5 years ago.  Man, where did time go?

 

What an interesting read back at the comments and suggestions from back then.  CalgaryNEXT was presented to the public 4 years ago.  We pretty much had a stalemate for 4 years and then today, we've approved a plan forward and we've circled back to the Victoria Park/Stampede area.

 

So that makes it 10 years.

Yikes.

Gio will be retired by then. 

Only 5 Norris trophies to go.

And 5 cups. 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

15 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

There would be taxable business outside the actual venue.  Food, stores, etc.

Creating an entertainment district would bring in those businesses.

Just build a spaceship in a crappy area, and you get bars and hookers.

I suppose you can build a Flames owned office tower and charge rent to the city for their workers. 

The same idea and reasoning is being applied with the True North Square here in the Peg. While not quite finished it includes  3 hi rises of mixed retail/ office/ residential and a center plaza which apparently could have a large viewing screen. I'm not sure how long after the Jets returned that this was in the works but I'm guessing the fact it eliminates the need to close down streets whenever the team does something helped speed up the process.

 

The fact the arena is already 14 years old just means soon enough people will be talking about it's replacement. And with the plaza next to the current arena the hopes of a new arena being built anywhere else but near the plaza just isnt going to happen.

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

The same idea and reasoning is being applied with the True North Square here in the Peg. While not quite finished it includes  3 hi rises of mixed retail/ office/ residential and a center plaza which apparently could have a large viewing screen. I'm not sure how long after the Jets returned that this was in the works but I'm guessing the fact it eliminates the need to close down streets whenever the team does something helped speed up the process.

 

The fact the arena is already 14 years old just means soon enough people will be talking about it's replacement. And with the plaza next to the current arena the hopes of a new arena being built anywhere else but near the plaza just isnt going to happen.

A few years back I was in a Arizona and took in a game at Gila River arena .. aside from the fact they put it in the middle of nowhere ,  I recall thinking "this is what Calgary needs " ..  a pure pedestrian district..but a very short walk to where you can get to transportation.. you walk out of the arena into a big plaza .. 2 levels of restaurants.. bars ..and a hotel at each end ..  people can gather in the plaza for a viewing party if necessary..  even on a non game night it was always alive . Giant neon screens outside the arena could double as ads or video /tv 

I can totally see us ending up with something similar and what I'm hoping the concept is leaning towards 

[phoenix66]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

So that makes it 10 years.

Yikes.

Gio will be retired by then. 

Only 5 Norris trophies to go.

And 5 cups. 

That's one thing the haters need to realize .

The "big bad greedy owners " they keep talking about..well.. one of them is 88 years old . If you question their desire to give back to Calgary and their motives ..recognize there is a very real possibility one of them is writing a check for something he will never see (I hope he does obviously get to but hey he'll be 93 when it's built )

[cross16]

I may have put these elsewhere, but there are rumors that the Flames have already picked this design for the new arena. The video even has the Flames in it.

 

 

[phoenix66]

16 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I may have put these elsewhere, but there are rumors that the Flames have already picked this design for the new arena. The video even has the Flames in it.

 

 

That would be so cool...

[travel_dude]

42 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I may have put these elsewhere, but there are rumors that the Flames have already picked this design for the new arena. The video even has the Flames in it.

 

 

 

It would be nice to "steer" away from designing this in homage to cowboy lifestyle.

EDM and the stupid Oil drop.

So annoying and adds little to the downtown.

 

Phoenix66 talked about the Ghilla River Arena.

Regardless of the outside design, it had decent insides.  You didn't have to walk up to the top level of expensive seats to start walking up to the cheap seasts to walk to the nose bleeds seats.  They had escalators to take you up, then you basically just had to find your seat.  

 

The thing that makes this area at least a bit sustainable is the U of Phoenix dome across the street.  Otherwise, it would be a ghost town when there was no hockey.

[phoenix66]

16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

It would be nice to "steer" away from designing this in homage to cowboy lifestyle.

EDM and the stupid Oil drop.

So annoying and adds little to the downtown.

 

Phoenix66 talked about the Ghilla River Arena.

Regardless of the outside design, it had decent insides.  You didn't have to walk up to the top level of expensive seats to start walking up to the cheap seasts to walk to the nose bleeds seats.  They had escalators to take you up, then you basically just had to find your seat.  

 

The thing that makes this area at least a bit sustainable is the U of Phoenix dome across the street.  Otherwise, it would be a ghost town when there was no hockey.

I would totally hope that's off the table.. especially since the saddle is what ultimately did it in for major events .. horrible sight lines and extremely bad acoustics .  Maybe make it look like its on fire ?  LOL

 

and ya .. great concept, bad location .. it would be like us building it in Strathmore 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I may have put these elsewhere, but there are rumors that the Flames have already picked this design for the new arena. The video even has the Flames in it.

 

 

Sounds good in theory but the highest tier/deck will have to have a steep slope/angle if pushed forward in order to maintain a good line of sight of the arena below.  I wonder how this will work and if they've built these arenas already.