Remember Me?
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Architecture and Design Use this forum to read, comment on and suggest your own ideas and concepts about design and architecture – and what works best, and worst, in the Edmonton environment, practically and philosophically.


Go Back   Connect2Edmonton > Growing Edmonton > Architecture and Design
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-01-2011, 06:35 PM   #1
howyadoin'
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default New Arena Building design

Well let me start off by saying that I couldn't locate an existing thread that would be pertinent to new arena building design. Please move if more appropriate thread.

As is well known, 101 street and 104 Ave is a key corner in the city. With that in mind, we must be sure we choose a building design that is condusive to keeping or improving the image of Edmonton globally.

At present, I do not like the current rendering of the new arena as it reminds me of the under belly of the space shuttle. With that in mind, we must think of what building or structure comes first and foremost comes to mind. For me, that building or structure is: The Sydney Opera House. The Sydney Opera House, I think would work well as it's bright and airy and would convert nicely to an arena and could be used for concerts as well as a multitude of other uses. Imagine if we oriented it South West with a second tier restaurant, over looking the city. In addition it may qualify for leed gold, be energy efficient, and have a fairly small footprint.
- The Sydney Opera House is located in Sydney Australia-
howyadoin' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-2011, 09:32 PM   #2
armin
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default

Honestly?
Go with a steampunk mix and blend the entire area Gotham-esque.

These standalone themes suck. You can't build around them and when they start to age, it really shows quickly. Build something with a shelf life that can be built up around it. Make that block seem like a london theatre 20 years from now.

Look at the area, it has so much potential but we need to get away from the standalone model. They look nice but nothing sits well with them.
armin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-01-2011, 09:56 PM   #3
howyadoin'
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armin View Post
Honestly?
Go with a steampunk mix and blend the entire area Gotham-esque.

These standalone themes suck. You can't build around them and when they start to age, it really shows quickly. Build something with a shelf life that can be built up around it. Make that block seem like a london theatre 20 years from now.

Look at the area, it has so much potential but we need to get away from the standalone model. They look nice but nothing sits well with them.
Good Points!

Yes it needs to be toned down and streamlined, but IMO, a good starting point.
howyadoin' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 12:05 PM   #4
Komrade
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beverly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armin View Post
Honestly?
Go with a steampunk mix and blend the entire area Gotham-esque.

These standalone themes suck. You can't build around them and when they start to age, it really shows quickly. Build something with a shelf life that can be built up around it. Make that block seem like a london theatre 20 years from now.

Look at the area, it has so much potential but we need to get away from the standalone model. They look nice but nothing sits well with them.
Very good points, but considering Edmontons taste of box stores and everything shiny and new do you think a style like that could be sold to the general masses?
__________________
facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic
youtube.com/GrimEmpire
Komrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 04:48 PM   #5
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

I think this will get more posts, but I think it we're at least a couple of months off before we see more on the design of the arena. At this point, I think that we may see work on what the arena might include. Looking forward to seeing what HOK says.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 11:09 AM   #6
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armin View Post
Honestly?
Go with a steampunk mix and blend the entire area Gotham-esque.
I thought you were joking when I first read it, but I really like the idea. There is so much potential to blend in a warehouse/industrial themed development starting with the UW district to the new Epcor tower. And it would definitely be unique, memorable and age very well.
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 11:35 AM   #7
Dialog
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Default

But what about when Steampunk isn't trendy in a few years?
__________________
A small town is a vast hell. —Argentinean proverb
Dialog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 12:07 PM   #8
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

Is it "trendy" now? It's generally a mix of industrial/victorian which looks even better as it gets older.
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 12:09 PM   #9
Dialog
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Default

Not everyone thinks it looks better with age, and yes, steampunk is absolutely a trend, has been going strong for a few years now. Which means a fall from favour is only a few years away.
__________________
A small town is a vast hell. —Argentinean proverb
Dialog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 12:16 PM   #10
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

Fair enough. Just want something more interesting than a glass toilet bowl.
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 03:02 PM   #11
edmonton daily photo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Something like the lloyds of london building...

Make it look like a refinery! ;-P

__________________
"Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi
edmonton daily photo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 04:11 PM   #12
Edmcowboy11
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

The refinery look may be cool in other cities but if you want to look at refineries just drive out to the east side of the city and one can see many many cool refinery buildings.
__________________
LRT is our future, time to push forward.
Edmcowboy11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2011, 11:49 AM   #13
armin
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
Something like the lloyds of london building...

Make it look like a refinery! ;-P

That's sweet looking.
armin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2011, 11:52 AM   #14
edmonton daily photo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

^ the Lloyds building is world famous... i
__________________
"Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi
edmonton daily photo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2011, 12:02 PM   #15
armin
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
The refinery look may be cool in other cities but if you want to look at refineries just drive out to the east side of the city and one can see many many cool refinery buildings.
Refineries have a working class image. Edmonton is a working class city.

But, I agree that we don't really want to look at them.

The model I have in mind works on different levels. From a streetscape perspective, it would be closer to an urban village surrounding the core arena. From a topdown or distant perspective, it'd be distinct though.
armin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2011, 12:29 PM   #16
McBoo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Default

Is there some kind of anti-gravity thingie inside so the players can skate up and down vertically?

Other than that, thinking what the seating bowl would look like inside I keep thinking Star Wars. Cool
__________________
... gobsmacked
McBoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2012, 12:29 PM   #17
dasupalouie
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...s.html?cmp=rss



This thing doesnt look appealing to me, but that's just me...

Last edited by dasupalouie; 26-04-2012 at 12:31 PM.. Reason: added picture
dasupalouie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2012, 12:33 PM   #18
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Perhaps you could use the thread with the current discussion in it?

Arena District and surrounding area | Discussion/Rumours
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2012, 11:25 AM   #19
cnr67
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasupalouie View Post
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...s.html?cmp=rss



This thing doesn't look appealing to me, but that's just me...
Concur. Very unappealing!
__________________
Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......
cnr67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2012, 06:21 PM   #20
sweetcrude
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Is there an option without this "Winter Garden" / pedway concept?

Just a humble opinion...
Also not a fan of the curvy swerve-y design. Let's please refrain from installing a permanent eyesore downtown. Having the arena downtown will benefit downtown. It doesn't necessarily, on its own, need to have a spectacular, avant-garde, or trendy exterior appearance. Would much prefer a more pedestrian design if it ensures that this facility integrates itself well into the surrounding community.

... end humble opinion
sweetcrude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2012, 09:52 PM   #21
Edmonton PRT
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

The smooth curves are appealing. Anybody consider the ice and snow sliding off the roof and onto the pedestrians below?
__________________
Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.
Edmonton PRT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2012, 11:15 PM   #22
Glenco
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default My opinion is more humble than your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetcrude View Post
Is there an option without this "Winter Garden" / pedway concept?

Just a humble opinion...
Also not a fan of the curvy swerve-y design. Let's please refrain from installing a permanent eyesore downtown. Having the arena downtown will benefit downtown. It doesn't necessarily, on its own, need to have a spectacular, avant-garde, or trendy exterior appearance. Would much prefer a more pedestrian design if it ensures that this facility integrates itself well into the surrounding community.

... end humble opinion
I like the modern look of these renderings. I hope the finished product lives up to the expectations. I am not crazy about the pedway but if done right it could turn out to be a positive addition. The devil as they say is in the details. It certainly will provide a juxtaposition to the more traditional RAM design. Something for everyone.
On a different note to anyone doesn't think sports and there related facilities have an impact Manchester United and Manchester City will be playing a premier league game on Monday that will in all likelyhood determine the league championship. It is estimated 650,000,000 people world wide will be watching this LEAGUE GAME matchup. Sports has elevated Manchester to almost mystical proportions to a city that was once the sewer of the English industrial revolution. You can not buy this kind of publicity.
__________________
"Next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you." -- Groucho Marx
Glenco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 04:35 PM   #23
vivz
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Default

Just imagine a shinning flawless toilet bowl.

I sort of like the futuristic look as long as the tax payer won't have to chip in for it. But I am a bit disappointed that it seems the all-in-one giant mass idea would carry on despite of objections. It is not an open concept can spur the development of the surrounding area.

Now I hope they don't have money for the whole thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bolo View Post
Fair enough. Just want something more interesting than a glass toilet bowl.
vivz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 09:34 PM   #24
cnr67
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vivz View Post
Just imagine a shinning flawless toilet bowl.

I sort of like the futuristic look as long as the tax payer won't have to chip in for it
.
.
__________________
Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......
cnr67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 09:45 PM   #25
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

To those who don't want a cent of their money to be spent on the arena, I wonder if they should be allowed to invest in downtown property, if it increases in value.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 10:42 PM   #26
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
To those who don't want a cent of their money to be spent on the arena, I wonder if they should be allowed to invest in downtown property, if it increases in value.

Pretty rich coming from someone who doesn't pay Edmonton property tax and therefore is not paying additional money for the Arena.....

The point being that taxes are mandatory while buying property as an investment is not mandatory. The City is forcing all their taxpayers to take this investment risk weather they agree or not.
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 01:38 AM   #27
cnr67
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
To those who don't want a cent of their money to be spent on the arena, I wonder if they should be allowed to invest in downtown property, if it increases in value.
Oh don't worry, My money is invested in far far more lucrative than the sh!thole we call a downtown here.
__________________
Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......
cnr67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 07:24 AM   #28
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Nice attitude cnr67.
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 07:58 AM   #29
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

The reason for such a comment is that I get tired of those who don't want to spend a single cent on any government programs or infrastructure, but turn around and want everything for free.

I will agree, that tax dollars should not be substituted from other capital projects, wherever possible. Provincial MSI money should be intended for roads, recreational facilities and near-market housing. I am just upset at the small percentage of people who are down on everything in this city, and who will continue to be unhappy even if it's in a city that has greater fortunes than many other Canadian cities.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 11:38 AM   #30
PJC
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
To those who don't want a cent of their money to be spent on the arena, I wonder if they should be allowed to invest in downtown property, if it increases in value.

Pretty rich coming from someone who doesn't pay Edmonton property tax and therefore is not paying additional money for the Arena.....

The point being that taxes are mandatory while buying property as an investment is not mandatory. The City is forcing all their taxpayers to take this investment risk weather they agree or not.
Incorrect. Show me where it says in any of the arena agreements or announcements that any of your property taxes are going towards its construction.

Last edited by PJC; 09-05-2012 at 11:41 AM..
PJC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 11:53 AM   #31
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
To those who don't want a cent of their money to be spent on the arena, I wonder if they should be allowed to invest in downtown property, if it increases in value.
Oh don't worry, My money is invested in far far more lucrative than the sh!thole we call a downtown here.
atta boy
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 11:54 AM   #32
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

^^Even the biggest arena booster has to realize the CRL is just an elaborate shell game, shifting tax revenue from other neighborhoods (and education) to downtown. Although the average person's property tax will not directly contribute to the arena, there will be shortfalls resulting from the CRL that have to be made up somehow (either by increased taxes or lower service levels).

For the record, I'm fine with tax money going into the arena, I just wish they were more transparent about it.
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 01:23 PM   #33
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Sorry, the CRL doesn't work like that. The CRL is applied to new developments in the zone. It's an extra tax, so the existing property taxes will still go to the same places...

There may be shortfalls of the CRL, but I don't see it, especially if 1/4 of the rumours we have recently been hearing about come true.
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 01:36 PM   #34
edmonton daily photo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

The CRL is not an extra tax...

CRL 101.

Once the CRL is in place, any additional tax $$ created by new surrounding development (Including the Education portion of property tax) will be reinvested back into that area or go to pay loans for work done in the area...

The key is ADDITIONAL. so if there was an education short fall it was there before hand not because of the CRL and we really need to get a grip the education tax portion of this small dt area is a drop in the bucket compared to the total education budget. Lastly after the CRL expires in 10 years everything returns to normal and the province gets a nice big increase.

I would not call it a shell game I would call it direct investment... Which as it should be. we should see more of the tax dollars that are created in our DT core/oliver spent in those communities. . Right now Oliver has to struggle to build a simple park.... Tell me why the densest neighborhood in Edmonton can get full funding from the city for a simple park when we easily bring in more $$ / sqr foot of land than any other community. DT has made the same argument. 10% of the tax rev comes from this tiny tiny area and until VERY recently all that money was invested elsewhere...

Lastly we have to use the tools the gov't will let us because the prov gov't sets the rules. so don't blame the city blame the province for ignoring cities for years and years and years.
__________________
"Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 09-05-2012 at 01:39 PM..
edmonton daily photo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 01:58 PM   #35
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

Think through to the logical conclusions and alternatives.

1. The arena development will encourage other commercial development in the CRL zone that would otherwise have occurred elsewhere in the city. Hence, tax that would have gone into general tax that is now going into the CRL.

2. Property value in other parts of the city will decrease (ie businesses around Rexall Place, Whyte ave bars, etc) while property values in the CRL zone will increase. Ie, if Coliseum Steak and Pizza were to relocate to the CRL zone, the property tax they pay would go from general revenue to CRL. This presents an overall net loss in general tax revenue.

3. Property value increases not associated to the arena development will be captured in the CRL. Even before the arena plans, there has been substantial development in the core this last decade. When the CRL is in place, increased tax revenue from arena ambivalent development will be captured into the CRL instead of general revenue where they would have otherwise gone.

All things being equal, these all add up to a net loss to the city's general tax revenue as it is shifted to the CRL. The hope is that things will not be equal and that an arena development will encourage substantial investments to come in from outside of Edmonton providing a net benefit in overall tax dollars. We want as many CRL dollars as possible to be "bonus" money and not just taxes that would have otherwise be earned by the city anyways. To do so, we need to attract businesses and residents that otherwise would not have come to Edmonton (ie the quality of life improvment from our Downtown is the deciding factor). This is the leap of faith that people are being asked to make and what a lot of people have issue with.

Now, I've made the leap and support the CRL. And I actually like the fact that the dollars generated downtown will be spent downtown. But it's not all going to be "magic" money like some people make it out to be.

Last edited by bolo; 09-05-2012 at 02:03 PM..
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 02:10 PM   #36
cnr67
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
Nice attitude cnr67.
Truth hurts? We have very little character in this city's core. It vanished and was for the most part replaced with parking lots, glass and plastic.We have a long way to go.
__________________
Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......
cnr67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 02:32 PM   #37
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

How much time have you spent downtown in the last 5 years? Next to nothing? Our downtown has suffered at the immense growth of suburbia. Downtown has had next to zero invested in it in 30+ years. Time to change that... Change the occurs by re-investing in our downtown.

There's a bit of truth to what you are saying... but downtown has come a long way already. Should we not have a city core we can be proud of? bringing more people, more amenities, more retail, more people working, more people living, and more people playing is the answer.

Your "solution" is just to ignore it? Not really a solution.

And our downtown is far from a sh!thole... far from it. Maybe if you spent some time there, you'd learn to appreciate it, might even find something you like. (And time spent there doesn't count your observations at 50km/h in your car as you zing through it)
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 02:39 PM   #38
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Going from 6500 people in 1997 to somewhere around 13000 in 2012 is not a bad thing either. The UW has a long way to go, but outside of that, downtown is coming along nicely. That said, far more investment, people, activity and things to see and do is needed.

An arena will very much assist with that.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 03:10 PM   #39
edmonton daily photo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Bolo... Many of your assumptions are rather suspect.

You have decided that property values will decrease in places like the arena area. I would challenge that with the right development there you could see property values increase. Why would rate property values on whyte drop because they build an arena DT.

In short I think just about everything you wrote is bunk and is spinning fear.

Prove that the commercial development would have occurred elsewhere if not for the arena... it pretty well proven that having a dead bombed out DT has a net negative effect over the entire city in the way of safety, crime prevention, outside perception and ability to attract and retain talent.
__________________
"Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi
edmonton daily photo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 04:38 PM   #40
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

^Within the city, it's a zero sum game. An arena isn't going to provide citizens with an increase in discretionary funds. It will simply concentrate our spending in the downtown entertainment district at the expense of others (like Whyte). Obviously buying one less beer on Whyte isn't going to send the property value plunging, but from a high level perspective, the less business Whyte ave gets, the lower the property will be valued.

I think the onus is to prove that it's not a zero sum game. If we had businesses come in and say, "We are going to build something or other in downtown Edmonton contingent on the arena being built and if it's not built, we will take our money to another city," that would be the proof. That is what we're all hoping for. I have a very strong feeling that this is happening behind the scenes, but noone has really come out to say it. I hope we hear some announcements to that end sometime soon.

Anyways, I'm not spinning fear. Just looking at things objectively. Like I said, I have faith the CRL is a good idea. And more on topic, I think the arena design is the type of building to generate additional momentum on downtown development (though I have zero proof unfortunately). But I can also see the drawbacks of the CRL as well and I think people are doing themselves a disservice to ignore them.
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 04:57 PM   #41
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Zero sum perhaps, net gain absolutely. It will concentrate far more spending/time/people in the downtown core.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 05:21 PM   #42
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

I think, even if we have downtown growth at 500 residents per year, that's at least 250 new apartments or condos per year. If each one is assessed at $300,000, that's $75 million more to the tax base, or about $750,000 to the CRL in the first year. Even at this slow growth rate, and no property appreciation, that's over $150 million in CRL revenue.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 05:29 PM   #43
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

The ratio of unit to occupied is more in the 1.4-1.6 range.

Keep in mind that they were VERY conservative with this CRL value.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 05:38 PM   #44
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

I agree IanO. I think downtown has grown by close to 500 per year in the last few years, and my estimate ignores any commercial development.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 05:44 PM   #45
Hilman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ozerna, North Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolo View Post
^Within the city, it's a zero sum game. An arena isn't going to provide citizens with an increase in discretionary funds. It will simply concentrate our spending in the downtown entertainment district at the expense of others (like Whyte). Obviously buying one less beer on Whyte isn't going to send the property value plunging, but from a high level perspective, the less business Whyte ave gets, the lower the property will be valued.

I think the onus is to prove that it's not a zero sum game. If we had businesses come in and say, "We are going to build something or other in downtown Edmonton contingent on the arena being built and if it's not built, we will take our money to another city," that would be the proof. That is what we're all hoping for. I have a very strong feeling that this is happening behind the scenes, but noone has really come out to say it. I hope we hear some announcements to that end sometime soon.

Anyways, I'm not spinning fear. Just looking at things objectively. Like I said, I have faith the CRL is a good idea. And more on topic, I think the arena design is the type of building to generate additional momentum on downtown development (though I have zero proof unfortunately). But I can also see the drawbacks of the CRL as well and I think people are doing themselves a disservice to ignore them.
I disagree, it will be a net gain, currently I go to Rexall and leave as fast as possible. If there was a district like the new arena will have, I would eat and drink before/after events and I'm guessing many others would too.
Hilman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 08:47 PM   #46
cnr67
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
How much time have you spent downtown in the last 5 years? Next to nothing? Our downtown has suffered at the immense growth of suburbia. Downtown has had next to zero invested in it in 30+ years. Time to change that... Change the occurs by re-investing in our downtown.

There's a bit of truth to what you are saying... but downtown has come a long way already. Should we not have a city core we can be proud of? bringing more people, more amenities, more retail, more people working, more people living, and more people playing is the answer.

Your "solution" is just to ignore it? Not really a solution.

And our downtown is far from a sh!thole... far from it. Maybe if you spent some time there, you'd learn to appreciate it, might even find something you like. (And time spent there doesn't count your observations at 50km/h in your car as you zing through it)
I do my work downtown and have done so for 25 years. I have been witness to the wholesale oblivion of the character of this city's core. The CN freight sheds on 104 ave which could have been a farmer's market, the CP Station on 9th, CP building on Jasper ect ect ect.With the exception of a few locals I frequent,there is very little left I find appealing in the core which prompts me to invest in the area in which I live. Perhaps the I lack the appreciation of the modernistic feel of this city. No question we need more development which spurs business to flourish, however, I don't find downtown appealing overall. There is very little in the way of originality in the structures being put up.And since I spend my days in the core, I have little reason to be here after work.
__________________
Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......
cnr67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:40 AM   #47
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
I disagree, it will be a net gain, currently I go to Rexall and leave as fast as possible. If there was a district like the new arena will have, I would eat and drink before/after events and I'm guessing many others would too.
It's still zero-sum, the arena isn't going to magically give you more money to spend. Whether it pulls money from the current Rexall Place district, Whyte ave or whatever grocery store you buy from to home cook your meals; it's still zero sum. It's fine to concentrate the spending downtown, I am supportive of that, but it will come at the expense of somewhere else, that's all.

The development needs to convince people or businesses to come to Edmonton, or to convince ones that would otherwise leave to stay in Edmonton. That''s net gain. Shuffling around the current citizens' spending is not.

Anyways that's all. Accept it or not, no big deal. I've derailed the thread enough I think. Back to the building design.

Last edited by bolo; 10-05-2012 at 10:44 AM..
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:59 AM   #48
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolo View Post
The development needs to convince people or businesses to come to Edmonton, or to convince ones that would otherwise leave to stay in Edmonton. That''s net gain. Shuffling around the current citizens' spending is not.
Coliseum currently offers nothing around it for people to eat or play after or before the game. Events at the arena certainly aren't limited to just people who live inside the city. Giving them options for before or after the game with having the arena downtown will be a net gain, as there is more potential for people to spend there money there, rather than waiting till they get back to Slave Lake, Grande Prairie, Red Deer, Leduc, Sherwood Park, or elsewhere outside of Edmonton.
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 11:10 AM   #49
Hilman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ozerna, North Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
I disagree, it will be a net gain, currently I go to Rexall and leave as fast as possible. If there was a district like the new arena will have, I would eat and drink before/after events and I'm guessing many others would too.
It's still zero-sum, the arena isn't going to magically give you more money to spend. Whether it pulls money from the current Rexall Place district, Whyte ave or whatever grocery store you buy from to home cook your meals; it's still zero sum. It's fine to concentrate the spending downtown, I am supportive of that, but it will come at the expense of somewhere else, that's all.

The development needs to convince people or businesses to come to Edmonton, or to convince ones that would otherwise leave to stay in Edmonton. That''s net gain. Shuffling around the current citizens' spending is not.

Anyways that's all. Accept it or not, no big deal. I've derailed the thread enough I think. Back to the building design.
I'll repeat what I said as you obviously don't understand or do not want to accept the fact that it IS NOT a zero sum game. I said I currently don't go out before the game as there is absolutely nothing good in the area and would love to go out before or after the game and spend money. Even if you try to argue that I am spending money on a meal at home, that would be much, much less than going out and buying a meal and alcoholic drinks. In summation, a net gain for the area AND the city as I am spending more money than I currently am (has nothing to do with magic, people have money to spend but can't/won't in the Rexall area).
Hilman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 11:18 AM   #50
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

i have a feeling that people will still be flogging this dead horse even after the new arena is built and downtown businesses pop up and flourish, and the taxes of the complainers are still the same.
MrOilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 11:57 AM   #51
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolo View Post
The development needs to convince people or businesses to come to Edmonton, or to convince ones that would otherwise leave to stay in Edmonton. That''s net gain. Shuffling around the current citizens' spending is not.
Coliseum currently offers nothing around it for people to eat or play after or before the game. Events at the arena certainly aren't limited to just people who live inside the city. Giving them options for before or after the game with having the arena downtown will be a net gain, as there is more potential for people to spend there money there, rather than waiting till they get back to Slave Lake, Grande Prairie, Red Deer, Leduc, Sherwood Park, or elsewhere outside of Edmonton.
Yup, that's net gain.
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 11:59 AM   #52
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
I disagree, it will be a net gain, currently I go to Rexall and leave as fast as possible. If there was a district like the new arena will have, I would eat and drink before/after events and I'm guessing many others would too.
It's still zero-sum, the arena isn't going to magically give you more money to spend. Whether it pulls money from the current Rexall Place district, Whyte ave or whatever grocery store you buy from to home cook your meals; it's still zero sum. It's fine to concentrate the spending downtown, I am supportive of that, but it will come at the expense of somewhere else, that's all.

The development needs to convince people or businesses to come to Edmonton, or to convince ones that would otherwise leave to stay in Edmonton. That''s net gain. Shuffling around the current citizens' spending is not.

Anyways that's all. Accept it or not, no big deal. I've derailed the thread enough I think. Back to the building design.
I'll repeat what I said as you obviously don't understand or do not want to accept the fact that it IS NOT a zero sum game. I said I currently don't go out before the game as there is absolutely nothing good in the area and would love to go out before or after the game and spend money. Even if you try to argue that I am spending money on a meal at home, that would be much, much less than going out and buying a meal and alcoholic drinks. In summation, a net gain for the area AND the city as I am spending more money than I currently am (has nothing to do with magic, people have money to spend but can't/won't in the Rexall area).
This is also net gain. But you are the only person I know who is just sitting on their money waiting for the arena district to spend it on. Hopefully there are others.
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 12:06 PM   #53
Hilman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ozerna, North Edmonton
Default

LOL, I guess I am the only one in the whole city that loathes the Rexall area and will be spending more time and money in an actual arena district with bars, restaurants and god forbid life/vibrancy
Hilman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 01:05 PM   #54
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

bolo - please review all arena threads and see how many people have made the exact same comments

Area around rexall not so inviting... people go there, and leave the area immediately after. There is no where to go around the current arena, unless you feel like getting shot or knifed at the Diesel night club...

Area around new arena: tons of potential
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 01:13 PM   #55
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

First, go back, read what I wrote and actually comprehend what I am saying.
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 01:25 PM   #56
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

I was responding to "hopefully there is others... " Clearly there is.
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 01:31 PM   #57
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

I hope so. I just find it hard to believe people have been saving extra money for all these years, decades really, because they didn't have a downtown arena district to spend it in. My hunch is that they probably spent it on something else in the city.

Anyways, there's no sense arguing. Like I said, I am for the shell game, even knowing it's a shell game. It's really the only way to push the agenda forward without inciting a riot. I wish the population would just realize that there is more to tax money than just fixing potholes and that we could be more transparent about things.
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 03:43 PM   #58
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

I don't think anyone has been saving money for decades. Perhaps they just go home after event. I'm sure some go somewhere else, but what many of us are saying is more people would be willing to stay downtown, around the arena district, if there were options available. There is and will be more options available, especially when you consider there is next to nothing by the existing arena. If they go home, money not spent...
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:19 PM   #59
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default Thanks Bolo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolo View Post
^^Even the biggest arena booster has to realize the CRL is just an elaborate shell game, shifting tax revenue from other neighborhoods (and education) to downtown. Although the average person's property tax will not directly contribute to the arena, there will be shortfalls resulting from the CRL that have to be made up somehow (either by increased taxes or lower service levels).

For the record, I'm fine with tax money going into the arena, I just wish they were more transparent about it.

For the record I agree with everything you've said on this thread with two exceptions.

1.) That the biggest arena boosters realize that the CRL is a shell game; it is apparent that the biggest boosters honestly believe that this money is solely due to the arena and there is no downside to this entire project.

2.) Your conclusion that the costs and risks are worth the upside to the new arena. However I do appreciate the thought that you bring to the debate (this thread and your work estimating the equivalent lease value of Katz's contribution)

Finally thank you for spending the time to explain the CRL far better than I could. You have brought some needed civility and intelligence to this discussion.

KJH
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 10:31 PM   #60
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolo View Post
Think through to the logical conclusions and alternatives.

1. The arena development will encourage other commercial development in the CRL zone that would otherwise have occurred elsewhere in the city. Hence, tax that would have gone into general tax that is now going into the CRL.

2. Property value in other parts of the city will decrease (ie businesses around Rexall Place, Whyte ave bars, etc) while property values in the CRL zone will increase. Ie, if Coliseum Steak and Pizza were to relocate to the CRL zone, the property tax they pay would go from general revenue to CRL. This presents an overall net loss in general tax revenue.

3. Property value increases not associated to the arena development will be captured in the CRL. Even before the arena plans, there has been substantial development in the core this last decade. When the CRL is in place, increased tax revenue from arena ambivalent development will be captured into the CRL instead of general revenue where they would have otherwise gone.

I just wanted to add a couple more:

4. Increased businesses and residents Downtown will increase the services that the city needs to provide (think fire trucks, police etc...) normally those costs would be recouped through the increased property taxes in the area. As these increased taxes are now going to pay the Arena debt, the shortfall (or reduced surplus) due to the cost of these increased services will have to be taken from residents outside the CRL area.

5. Building a new arena turns the current Rexall Place into a building that is probably not competitive and functionally worthless. The maintenance and disposal responsibilities are still the Cities. These costs to either maintain or demolish Rexall are also born by the general taxpayer.


PS I personally loved the words "arena ambivalent development"

In the interest of no longer derailing this thread I would like to point out that the proposed building is very pretty. Reminds me of a Vegas Casino.

Cheers and Good Evening.
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:24 AM   #61
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
5. Building a new arena turns the current Rexall Place into a building that is probably not competitive and functionally worthless. The maintenance and disposal responsibilities are still the Cities. These costs to either maintain or demolish Rexall are also born by the general taxpayer.
Come on.

This would be an issue no matter who pays for the new arena, and regardless of whenever a new one gets built.
MrOilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:30 AM   #62
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
5. Building a new arena turns the current Rexall Place into a building that is probably not competitive and functionally worthless. The maintenance and disposal responsibilities are still the Cities. These costs to either maintain or demolish Rexall are also born by the general taxpayer.
Come on.

This would be an issue no matter who pays for the new arena, and regardless of whenever a new one gets built.
This is an issue if a new arena is built, however it is not an issue if Rexall is renovated.

Also if a different philanthropic person (call them Mr and Mrs Dogz for fun) paid the full cost for a new arena, then the city could take some of the money that they save and use it to redevelop Rexall.

The big thing to point out is that we as a city are spending money to put a city owned building out of business. (or make it no longer profitable however you want to say it) Ignoring the costs of that action doesn't make them go away and is a line item that the taxpayer is responsible for.
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 12:01 PM   #63
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
it is not an issue if Rexall is renovated.
Actually, it is a more expensive issue that would HAVE TO be paid for 100% with taxpayer dollars. And we would still be stuck with a too-small arena in a poor location of the city.
MrOilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 12:06 PM   #64
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

^exactly. IF we renovated Rexall, it would be in the $175-225,000,000 range likely and for what outcome?
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 12:26 PM   #65
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

Just adding the costs boys, like it don't like it, your call.

^^ We could stop giving the Oilers and Northlands the current ticket tax and use it to maintain and renovate the building, ever think of that? We could also stop paying the Oilers rent and use that money to pay for the building, ever think of that?

Easier to say that we can jump through all sorts of financial hoops for a preferred project while saying the alternate case must be paid in the most obvious way possible.
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 12:48 PM   #66
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

We might as well just tell the Oilers to move out of town and keep everything else as it is (I'm talking about the too-small, outdated Rexall dump)

No thanks. Not in my Edmonton.
MrOilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 12:59 PM   #67
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
We might as well just tell the Oilers to move out of town and keep everything else as it is (I'm talking about the too-small, outdated Rexall dump)

No thanks. Not in my Edmonton.

The ability to get a good deal in any negotiation is the ability to walk away.

You can't / won't and that's fine.

However do me a favor and don't try to tell me that this is a fantastic financial deal because you can't live without your beloved team.

Don't expect me to respect you for hanging your personal self worth on the location of a professional sports team either Mr Oilers.
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 01:04 PM   #68
SP59
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sherwood park
Default

I understand that the Oilers are a top ten revenue generating team in the NHL. Where are they going to move to that is going to be better? If they do move the vacuum will be filled.
SP59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 01:24 PM   #69
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Don't expect me to respect you for hanging your personal self worth on the location of a professional sports team either Mr Oilers.
I would argue that the Oilers are more famous and important than the City of Edmonton itself. It would be Edmonton's loss to lose the Oilers.
MrOilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 01:52 PM   #70
Alex.L
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post

The big thing to point out is that we as a city are spending money to put a city owned building out of business. (or make it no longer profitable however you want to say it) Ignoring the costs of that action doesn't make them go away and is a line item that the taxpayer is responsible for.

See: Queen Elizabeth Pool.

Renovate (a few years ago) or close it and build a new one down the hill next to the Kinsmen. The city spent money to rebuild a bigger and better venue in a better location instead of throwing money at the old pool just to bring it up to current standards. Instead, the old pool was demolished and the new pool will draw a much larger crowd for years to come.

I don't remember everybody freaking out about that...
__________________
Maker of Something(s) Edmonton - http://tinyurl.com/YEGFRAME & http://tinyurl.com/ThriftThraft
Alex.L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 04:59 PM   #71
East McCauley
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ander View Post
See: Queen Elizabeth Pool.

Renovate (a few years ago) or close it and build a new one down the hill next to the Kinsmen. The city spent money to rebuild a bigger and better venue in a better location instead of throwing money at the old pool just to bring it up to current standards. Instead, the old pool was demolished and the new pool will draw a much larger crowd for years to come.

I don't remember everybody freaking out about that...
In that case you have a very bad memory.

Despite less than one per cent of the tax dollars involved compared to the DT Arena, pretty much every aspect of the QE Pool relocation (and who was going to pay for it) was argued about over many years.
__________________
rapidtransitforedmonton.org
East McCauley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:54 PM   #72
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post

The big thing to point out is that we as a city are spending money to put a city owned building out of business. (or make it no longer profitable however you want to say it) Ignoring the costs of that action doesn't make them go away and is a line item that the taxpayer is responsible for.

See: Queen Elizabeth Pool.

Renovate (a few years ago) or close it and build a new one down the hill next to the Kinsmen. The city spent money to rebuild a bigger and better venue in a better location instead of throwing money at the old pool just to bring it up to current standards. Instead, the old pool was demolished and the new pool will draw a much larger crowd for years to come.

I don't remember everybody freaking out about that...
Why don't you read what I wrote, understand what I'm saying and figure out why your Queen Elizabeth Pool is a poor example and try again.

I'll give you a couple of days to think about it if you still don't know then I'll tell you why your comparison smells like what comes out of my pooper.
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:02 PM   #73
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Don't expect me to respect you for hanging your personal self worth on the location of a professional sports team either Mr Oilers.
I would argue that the Oilers are more famous and important than the City of Edmonton itself. It would be Edmonton's loss to lose the Oilers.

"I would argue that the Oilers are more important than the City of Edmonton itself."

You honestly think that, honestly?

Do the Oilers take away your toilet water?
Do the Oilers take away your garbage?
Do the Oilers make sure your drinking water is safe?
Do the Oilers come and investigate, and arrest those who rob, assault, and steal from your loved ones?
Will the Oilers come put your house out if it is on fire?
Do the Oilers clear the snow from the roads?

I know that rule one here is critique the post not the poster but if you honestly believe that the Oilers are more important than the city I don't think I can follow that rule.

Therefore thank you for your time Mr Oilers, I wish you the best in all your endeavors.
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:22 PM   #74
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

I think what MrOilers is saying is that this team does a lot for promoting this city. The Oilers have a proud history, and many people outside of Canada who know Edmonton know either West Edmonton Mall, or Edmonton's Stanley Cup history and legends like Wayne Gretzky.

Edmonton's identity has a strong bond with the Oilers, and it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a replacement if the Oilers ever left town.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:09 AM   #75
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

I'd likely leave town if we did not have the oilers for our long winter... And no, another team would not work for me.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:12 AM   #76
JamesL
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Westmount
Default

Would you follow the team to wherever it is they'd go?
JamesL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:25 AM   #77
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Not likely, but the oilers are part of the reason I choose to live here.
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:55 AM   #78
bolo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

That's why I ultimately support the arena project. I think it will go some way in attracting people to choose Edmonton, whether that means moving here or staying here. I'm sure we all know a significant number of people who have chosen other cities (Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal) in part because they feel there is more to do or more excitement in those cities.

A standout building design (like we have seen) will go a long way towards imprinting a positive image in people's minds about downtown/urban living in Edmonton. Especially for people watching HNIC. I shudder after every game when the camera van drives through the high level bridge in the dark. It looks gloomy, dreary and claustrophobic (and I still have no idea why they keep doing it). For the love of god, we need something better to showcase the city.
bolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:56 AM   #79
SP59
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sherwood park
Default

Its because the high level bridge is cool.
SP59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 12:04 PM   #80
Edmonton PRT
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Hockey fans, the term fan is short for fanatic and

1. A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
2. a person whose enthusiasm or zeal for something is extreme or beyond normal limits
3. Informal a person devoted to a particular hobby or pastime; fan [COLOR=#226699]a jazz fanatic[/COLOR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_(person)

Basically Oiler Fans will give anything and do anything for their beloved team. Even if they come last in the playoffs, raise their ticket prices or demand a new arena.

That is all well and good. People can be fans if they want to be, more power to them. I like the Oilers too but I am not willing to write them a blank cheque and offer my first born son. You must remember that the team is not just a team, it is a major corporation that is profit motivated with highly paid stars who are traded regularly or are free agents. Just don't ask everyone to take the risk on a movable asset that could pack up and leave to another city who offers a more profitable venue.
__________________
Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.
Edmonton PRT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 01:17 PM   #81
East McCauley
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
it is not an issue if Rexall is renovated.
Actually, it is a more expensive issue that would HAVE TO be paid for 100% with taxpayer dollars.
In other words, much the same as the proposed DT Arena.
__________________
rapidtransitforedmonton.org
East McCauley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 05:05 PM   #82
Alex.L
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post

The big thing to point out is that we as a city are spending money to put a city owned building out of business. (or make it no longer profitable however you want to say it) Ignoring the costs of that action doesn't make them go away and is a line item that the taxpayer is responsible for.

See: Queen Elizabeth Pool.

Renovate (a few years ago) or close it and build a new one down the hill next to the Kinsmen. The city spent money to rebuild a bigger and better venue in a better location instead of throwing money at the old pool just to bring it up to current standards. Instead, the old pool was demolished and the new pool will draw a much larger crowd for years to come.

I don't remember everybody freaking out about that...
Why don't you read what I wrote, understand what I'm saying and figure out why your Queen Elizabeth Pool is a poor example and try again.

I'll give you a couple of days to think about it if you still don't know then I'll tell you why your comparison smells like what comes out of my pooper.
Why don't you get off your high horse and just say what you think is wrong with my example instead of preening about like you're above it?

It's an example of the city owning one asset and deciding to build another incarnation of it in a different location instead of investing in renovation.
__________________
Maker of Something(s) Edmonton - http://tinyurl.com/YEGFRAME & http://tinyurl.com/ThriftThraft
Alex.L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2012, 02:24 PM   #83
sundance
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: City of Champions
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
I understand that the Oilers are a top ten revenue generating team in the NHL. Where are they going to move to that is going to be better? If they do move the vacuum will be filled.
Umm there are little US opportunities for new NHL franchises. Dallas is the 4th largest metro area in USA and it has attendance issues, judging by Dallas' success (or lack thereof) I can't see a Houston team. Atlanta is the 9th largest and the NHL experiment failed there twice. Phoenix is the 14th and without Gary Bettman's influence the team would have been gone years ago.
Seattle and Portland are possibles, perhaps add in Baltimore or Salt Lake City.

But I do agree with Bolo this is a zero sum shell game you are just shuffling money around from one location to the next. Yes there will be improvements in the downtown area, but what will happen to the area around 118th Avenue? The net result to the city overall will be fairly flat, yes construction companies will benefit. Unless something changes it will go downhill faster than it has been. Perhaps the city will be successful in attracting TODs to the area, its close to the downtown, you have the LRT, you have a high school nearby.

All this being said, I think an arena downtown is a good thing it can help bring some additional life into the area which is well needed and I support a downtown arena, I just worry what will happen to 118th Avenue.
sundance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2012, 10:49 PM   #84
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post

The big thing to point out is that we as a city are spending money to put a city owned building out of business. (or make it no longer profitable however you want to say it) Ignoring the costs of that action doesn't make them go away and is a line item that the taxpayer is responsible for.

See: Queen Elizabeth Pool.

Renovate (a few years ago) or close it and build a new one down the hill next to the Kinsmen. The city spent money to rebuild a bigger and better venue in a better location instead of throwing money at the old pool just to bring it up to current standards. Instead, the old pool was demolished and the new pool will draw a much larger crowd for years to come.

I don't remember everybody freaking out about that...
Why don't you read what I wrote, understand what I'm saying and figure out why your Queen Elizabeth Pool is a poor example and try again.

I'll give you a couple of days to think about it if you still don't know then I'll tell you why your comparison smells like what comes out of my pooper.
Why don't you get off your high horse and just say what you think is wrong with my example instead of preening about like you're above it?

It's an example of the city owning one asset and deciding to build another incarnation of it in a different location instead of investing in renovation.
I am not telling you because I think you are intelligent enough to figure it out. So far you are proving me wrong.

Also this gives the C2E community a chance to think about your example and decide for themselves if it is a good example or not. Your job is to convince them and me using reason and logic.

Last time I told you all the things that were wrong about your lack of thought you put into a post your feelings were hurt. Believe it or not this is me being nice.

I'll give you more time and give you some hints later if you need them.
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2012, 11:48 PM   #85
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

If Edmonton's economy and population (along with Northern Alberta) were not growing significantly, then any development downtown would be a zero-sum game. Edmonton grows at a rate at about 2% (or 16,000) per year, and about 1,000 of them choose to live within downtown.

If the arena is built, then that growth may shift to 2,000 per year downtown. Even then, the other 14,000 will live in suburban locations.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 06:43 AM   #86
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

^ You are comparing tax-year 2011 with a hypothetical 2016 that includes a downtown arena. Bolo and I are comparing a hypothetical 2016 without a downtown arena to a hypothetical 2016 with a downtown arena.

You also are assuming that the presence of the downtown arena will double the rate of people moving downtown (1000 to 2000 people per year) which is probably over optimistic. If you have a data or a study that suggests this sort of doubling occurs it is good form to post a link or provide a reference to that study.
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 07:43 AM   #87
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Don't expect me to respect you for hanging your personal self worth on the location of a professional sports team either Mr Oilers.
I would argue that the Oilers are more famous and important than the City of Edmonton itself. It would be Edmonton's loss to lose the Oilers.

"I would argue that the Oilers are more important than the City of Edmonton itself."

You honestly think that, honestly?
Not when you modify what I said so you can set up that straw man for you to bash.
MrOilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 08:06 AM   #88
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

My point is, kjh, is that Edmonton and area will most likely grow over the next five years. If we maintain the status quo, we'll likely be developing new land at about $30 million per subdivision. Even then, much of it will be South Edmonton, which could be fully developed in 15 years. Then what?

There will be costs for development incurred, either in South Edmonton or downtown. The new arena may take away suburban development, but only to a small extent.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 08:23 AM   #89
Edmonton PRT
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Don't expect me to respect you for hanging your personal self worth on the location of a professional sports team either Mr Oilers.
I would argue that the Oilers are more famous and important than the City of Edmonton itself. It would be Edmonton's loss to lose the Oilers.

"I would argue that the Oilers are more important than the City of Edmonton itself."

You honestly think that, honestly?
Not when you modify what I said so you can set up that straw man for you to bash.
You said what you said "I would argue that the Oilers are more famous and important than the City of Edmonton itself."
__________________
Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.
Edmonton PRT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 08:40 AM   #90
Edmcowboy11
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

The Edmonton Oilers are a very big draw and anyone who is not willing to acknoledge that is sticking their head in the sand and trying to pretend a fact isn't a fact. The Oilers themselves is not the salvation of the downtown core but the arena and the Oilers are the catalist that the downtown has needed to bring development into the central part of the city. The condo towers, the arena district, the RAM, the MacEwan Expansion, the Norquest Expansion, UCAMA, 5 Corners, Boyle Renaissance, the Quarters, a growing rejuvination of Jasper Ave, Capital Blvd, Federal Building and plaza, and much more are all part of the puzzle to bringing the downtown area much further. The arena though is the reason that a number of these projects are happening sooner than later.
__________________
LRT is our future, time to push forward.
Edmcowboy11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 09:44 AM   #91
stinger11
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Default

Simple theory, but may need to speak sloooowly for some people, if the demand is there, developers will build condo towers, entertainment venues etc. That is what they do. Try to make money. It's all about the money. If the DT was really "cool" there would be a stampede (forgive the Calgary talk) of people moving DT. Currently there isn't any form of a stampede of people wanting to move DT. So, someone has to break the egg; reference to the chicken and egg theory. It may cost some money, but someone has to do it. Someone with really big blls!
stinger11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 11:25 AM   #92
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Don't expect me to respect you for hanging your personal self worth on the location of a professional sports team either Mr Oilers.
I would argue that the Oilers are more famous and important than the City of Edmonton itself. It would be Edmonton's loss to lose the Oilers.

"I would argue that the Oilers are more important than the City of Edmonton itself."

You honestly think that, honestly?
Not when you modify what I said so you can set up that straw man for you to bash.
You said what you said "I would argue that the Oilers are more famous and important than the City of Edmonton itself."
Read what he wrote in bold. That is not what I said.
MrOilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 12:25 PM   #93
Alex.L
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post

The big thing to point out is that we as a city are spending money to put a city owned building out of business. (or make it no longer profitable however you want to say it) Ignoring the costs of that action doesn't make them go away and is a line item that the taxpayer is responsible for.

See: Queen Elizabeth Pool.

Renovate (a few years ago) or close it and build a new one down the hill next to the Kinsmen. The city spent money to rebuild a bigger and better venue in a better location instead of throwing money at the old pool just to bring it up to current standards. Instead, the old pool was demolished and the new pool will draw a much larger crowd for years to come.

I don't remember everybody freaking out about that...
Why don't you read what I wrote, understand what I'm saying and figure out why your Queen Elizabeth Pool is a poor example and try again.

I'll give you a couple of days to think about it if you still don't know then I'll tell you why your comparison smells like what comes out of my pooper.
Why don't you get off your high horse and just say what you think is wrong with my example instead of preening about like you're above it?

It's an example of the city owning one asset and deciding to build another incarnation of it in a different location instead of investing in renovation.
I am not telling you because I think you are intelligent enough to figure it out. So far you are proving me wrong.

Also this gives the C2E community a chance to think about your example and decide for themselves if it is a good example or not. Your job is to convince them and me using reason and logic.

Last time I told you all the things that were wrong about your lack of thought you put into a post your feelings were hurt. Believe it or not this is me being nice.

I'll give you more time and give you some hints later if you need them.
Because you were incredibly condescending. In fact, even these self-righteous posts saying things like "I think you're smarter than that" are pretty condescending. I posted a comparable. You are not my high school social studies instructor. It's not your job to tell me that you think I need to challenge myself. Just tell me what you think is wrong with the comparison so we can move on.
__________________
Maker of Something(s) Edmonton - http://tinyurl.com/YEGFRAME & http://tinyurl.com/ThriftThraft
Alex.L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 01:08 PM   #94
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

ok kids, knock it off
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 03:11 PM   #95
Admin
Forum Administrator
*
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edmonton
Default

After the recent PRT debacle, my patience is razor thin.

Stop attacking the person and debate points. If asked a question, flat out answer it or refuse to answer and take any result with a grain of salt.
Admin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2012, 03:37 PM   #96
Alex.L
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

I'll behave.
__________________
Maker of Something(s) Edmonton - http://tinyurl.com/YEGFRAME & http://tinyurl.com/ThriftThraft
Alex.L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2012, 12:02 AM   #97
kjh
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton
Default

^^^^ Before I start know that this gives me no joy whatsoever.

Also note that I am comparing your example to the proposed arena project, not debating the financials of my original point (the likely cost being small but non-zero)

Point one:

Starting with the original paragraph.

"The big thing to point out is that we as a city are spending money to put a city owned building out of business. (or make it no longer profitable however you want to say it) Ignoring the costs of that action doesn't make them go away and is a line item that the taxpayer is responsible for."

Please note that I said the same thing twice in different ways. This should provide the reader (you) a hint that I think this is important. Therefore when picking an example you have to do one of two things. Pick an example that matches (ie a profitable building) or explain why I am so foolish to think that a profitable building is any different than an unprofitable building. Let's be honest; my point here is not that strong, there is no real difference between going from paying 0 to paying 100 dollars or going from paying 100 to paying 200 dollars.

However ignoring the weakness for a second. Currently ticket prices pay for all operating costs (note that this doesn't happen at the pools in town). Current ticket prices also pay for some capital upgrades (remember the new seating that Northlands is putting in, taxpayers didn't pay for that).

Here is a reasonable conclusion that I think we can make. Note this is a wild guess. Northlands won't run an operating loss for long because they can't afford it as they have no way of making a cash call to their shareholders. As such they will either reduce their maintenance expenses, not renew their lease (in about 15 years) or use an opt out clause in the lease contract (haven't read the contract but I would bet a beer that there is an opt out clause of some variety). Potential (read; wild guess) costs of these actions are listed below. Note that there is no guarantee that there will be a cost impact on the taxpayer but there is no guarantee that there will be NO cost impact on the taxpayer either.

Reduced maintenance means more for the city to fix after the lease runs out (assuming we don't demolish then and there).

Not renewing the rexall lease brings forward the demolition costs (and the additional cost to the city is in the time value of money aspect of bringing a cost forward). Not renewing the lease allows the city to sell the land faster however based on the money losing proposition that is the fort road redevelopment my hopes are not high.

Northlands opting out of the lease in say 2020 (another wild guess) means that the city has to bring forward the demolition costs further, and brings down the anticipated sale value as Fort Road TOD probably hasn't filled out yet.

Comparison of a building that covers it's operating cost (rexall) and one that doesn't (Queen Elizabeth pool):

Rexall has a high operating cost compared to Queen Elizabeth pool. The difference is probably an order of magnitude so lets call rexall 100 units per year and Queen Elizabeth 10 units per year. If Queen Elizabeth only covers 50% of it's operating costs through user fees then the city only pays 5 units per year and will pay 10 units per year if no one goes to the pool. If Rexall can only cover 80% of it's operating cost the city is responsible for 20 units per year. The financial risk is much higher for Rexall than Queen Elizabeth pool.

Conclusions to point one:

I left myself wide open with lots of assumptions and no guarantee that the costs would be worst case but you didn't even address the main thrust of my point. That being the current arena pays for a lot of their costs and with a new arena to compete with (note we are competing with ourselves which is kinda dumb) the ability to cover those costs will go down.

Point two:

Queen Elizabeth pool was around 80 years old when operations stopped, Rexall will be less than 40 years old. The Pool was at the end of its lifecycle, Rexall is middle aged.

Building state:
Queen Elizabeth pool had a foundation crack, and pool walls that were poured directly against the earth. This foundation crack let water seep into the ground which destabilized the soil which led to the foundation settling more which led to more water leaking into the ground whi...... etc etc etc.

Rexall has a leaky roof, old ice equipment, and a small concourse. These deficiencies are to be expected in a 40 year old building, and are not insurmountable.

Usefulness and business of building:
To be honest I don't know how busy Queen Elizabeth pool was near the end. It certainly wasn't the best attended outdoor pool.

Rexall however is one of the busiest venues in North America (obviously we as citizens like it or are willing to put up with it). Rexall also has won national (Olympic curling qualification) and international (world junior hockey) host bids. Rexall also hosts the Oil Kings and the Rush splendidly. Even the Oilers sell out at one of the highest ticket prices for last place hockey. The Oilers pay into the stabilization fund meaning that the NHL thinks the Oilers are doing pretty good.

Conclusions for point two:

Queen Elizabeth pool was at the end of its lifecycle and decently used at best. Rexall is in need of some repairs and performing at a level that would make most other towns jealous.


Point three:

Timing of construction and demolition.

Queen Elizabeth pool was not used in any form for a number of years. This ties into point two. The pool was broken, and not worth fixing, and so we abandoned it. Later the community decided that it needed replaceing.

The current Arena plan is for Rexall to be in use for Oilers games until 2014 when the lease runs out.

No wait the current plan is for Rexall to be in use for Oilers games until 2015 when the building is finished.

No wait the current plan is for Rexall to be in use for Oilers games until 2017 because the CRL approval and provincial money weren't ready right away. (This hasn't happened yet but easily could)

Conclusion for point three:
Queen Elizabeth pool was abandoned then replaced because it was old and not worth maintaining. Rexall place is being replaced and open because the main tenant isn't happy.

Better comparables:

It's hard to find good comparables to the arena project, mostly because the city doesn't replace "good" buildings. Ones that I think you could have made a better case for are the new police building, or the Art gallery (remodeled but it's close to a tear down and rebuild).

Maybe the best comparable would be the Stadium Rec Centre, as there are a number of pools in the area, and the existing weight room was not really busy.

For the record I'm not a big fan of the financial aspects of the Stadium Rec Centre even though it's in my area, and it's pretty, and I like swimming, and I like working out.

Final thoughts:

I don't think I dug too deep into my memory banks for this information, I don't think that I put too much mental excercise into comparing the Queen Elizabeth Pool and the Areana project. I still think your comparable smells like what comes out of my pooper for the reasons given above, and I think you could have come up with different reasons than mine as to where the examples matched and where they came up deficient.
kjh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2012, 07:54 AM   #98
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Queen Elizabeth pool was around 80 years old when operations stopped, Rexall will be less than 40 years old. The Pool was at the end of its lifecycle, Rexall is middle aged.
40 years is not "middle aged" for an arena. Rexall is an old arena, that for a city this size, needed a replacement at least 5 years ago.
MrOilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2012, 08:22 AM   #99
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Earth to Kjh. Rexall is broken, antiquated and not worth fixing.

Last edited by Medwards; 16-05-2012 at 08:44 AM..
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2012, 08:25 AM   #100
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh View Post
Queen Elizabeth pool was around 80 years old when operations stopped, Rexall will be less than 40 years old. The Pool was at the end of its lifecycle, Rexall is middle aged.
40 years is not "middle aged" for an arena. Rexall is an old arena, that for a city this size, needed a replacement at least 5 years ago.
Exactly... or $250,000,000 in renos....
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.