Mightygoose
Registered User
Oops...(silly auto correct)...breaking ground end of the year (now fixed)Break ground or break down?
Oops...(silly auto correct)...breaking ground end of the year (now fixed)Break ground or break down?
City, Flames to each put extra $12.5M toward arena, CMLC off project | Calgary Herald
Flames to cover anything above the 25 million overrun that the 2 parties are splitting. Apparently this split was part of the 2019 agreement so it won't need a vote to approve.
More details to come out this week, looks like city will pay more for Saddledome demolition. CMLC will be removed as project manager in lieu of partners the Flames choose in exchange of covering the rest of the overruns.
Project now scheduled to break ground December or early 2022
Dolan offered to move to the Farley building across the street. City Council dragged their feet, so he renovated instead. This idea that the city will take back MSG is a pipe dream. If the city wants to take it through eminent domain, good luck. Dolan's lawyers will tie that up in court for years. Last thing they need to do is to make Penn Station "nice" or a tourist destination and have more people hanging out there.In terms of age? The Rangers. Sure they completely rebuilt the interior bowl, but the arena is still an awful 1960s design at its core, and that real estate needs to be used for something far more important. Penn Station is far too busy and important to be a basement craphole.
Ok, maybe that's just the rail fan in me still mad about the demolition of the original Penn Station.
I agree.In terms of age? The Rangers. Sure they completely rebuilt the interior bowl, but the arena is still an awful 1960s design at its core, and that real estate needs to be used for something far more important. Penn Station is far too busy and important to be a basement craphole.
Ok, maybe that's just the rail fan in me still mad about the demolition of the original Penn Station.
Really... they're bickering over 10 million bucks... split down the middle and tell each other off and get over it.
Shouldn't even be a public thing for this amount of money.
I am shocked that an agreement was approved between 2 parties without clearly addressing cost overruns. I would never think it is the cities responsibility to pay those unless maybe we are talking about infrastructure. But if a city will be liable for infrastructure costs there should be a cap on that amount. The major financial risks should be assumed by the private entity.
It's ridiculous for the City to pay anything for the arena, whether that's Calgary, Glendale, Tempe or anywhere else.
I would much rather see public money spent for better purposes.
Let the sports teams build their own facilities
I don't really care.Here's the issue the deal was already approved by the city council the current mayor is trying to change it and ask for more money.
I do not understand the difference between money not approved in the first place and a cost overrun, but that likely is my issue. Regardless, the parties either have or do not have a binding contract. If they do, then it should address the contingencies where more money is needed to fund the development. If there is no binding contract , then I would hope that future requests for "money not approved in the first place" is addressed in any MOU. By the way, 600 million seems really light to me. I know it was a bigger market, but Seattle had to pay about double that. With supply chain issues, possible inflation around the corner, as well as accommodating covid issues, costs may be significantly higher than the amount they are bickering over.It has nothing to do with cost over runs. The mayor is asking for more money that was never approved in the first place.
I do not understand the difference between money not approved in the first place and a cost overrun, but that likely is my issue. Regardless, the parties either have or do not have a binding contract. If they do, then it should address the contingencies where more money is needed to fund the development. If there is no binding contract , then I would hope that future requests for "money not approved in the first place" is addressed in any MOU. By the way, 600 million seems really light to me. I know it was a bigger market, but Seattle had to pay about double that. With supply chain issues, possible inflation around the corner, as well as accommodating covid issues, costs may be significantly higher than the amount they are bickering over.