Page 109 of 109 FirstFirst ... 95999105106107108109
Results 10,801 to 10,856 of 10856

Thread: Rogers Place - Arena | Entertainment & Sports Facility | Completed

  1. #10801
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    … I'm left wondering what OEG is responsible for.
    washroom supplies... which is maybe why the new arena is short of washrooms?

    seriously though, without reading the actual lease terms, those conditions aren't much different than many commercial lease exclusions. the landlord is typically responsible for repairs and replacement of a capital nature while the tenant is responsible for all maintenance and repairs of a non-capital nature. things like elevators are typically maintained - at the tenant's cost - on a full service contract which includes labour and material on a replacement part basis. there should never be a need for the landlord to replace them.
    Last edited by kcantor; 31-07-2018 at 03:15 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  2. #10802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    … I'm left wondering what OEG is responsible for.
    washroom supplies... which is maybe why the new arena is short of washrooms?

    seriously though, without reading the actual lease terms, those conditions aren't much different than many commercial lease exclusions. the landlord is typically responsible for repairs and replacement of a capital nature while the tenant is responsible for all maintenance and repairs of a non-capital nature. things like elevators are typically maintained - at the tenant's cost - on a full service contract which includes labour and material on a replacement part basis. there should never be a need for the landlord to replace them.
    Except that most commercial lease agreements aren't marketed as having the tenant pay for all maintenance. Here's what the city website misleadingly says about the lease agreement:

    EAC will operate Rogers Place and pay all operating and maintenance expenses, and will receive all operating revenues, including naming rights and parking revenue.
    Source: https://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_...agreement.aspx
    Last edited by OffWhyte; 31-07-2018 at 03:41 PM. Reason: Added word

  3. #10803
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    … I'm left wondering what OEG is responsible for.
    washroom supplies... which is maybe why the new arena is short of washrooms?

    seriously though, without reading the actual lease terms, those conditions aren't much different than many commercial lease exclusions. the landlord is typically responsible for repairs and replacement of a capital nature while the tenant is responsible for all maintenance and repairs of a non-capital nature. things like elevators are typically maintained - at the tenant's cost - on a full service contract which includes labour and material on a replacement part basis. there should never be a need for the landlord to replace them.
    Except that most commercial lease agreements aren't marketed as having the tenant pay for all maintenance. Here's what the city website misleadingly says about the lease agreement:

    EAC will operate Rogers Place and pay all operating and maintenance expenses, and will receive all operating revenues, including naming rights and parking revenue.
    Source: https://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_...agreement.aspx
    most commercial lease agreements are indeed marketed as having the tenant pay for all maintenance. structural repairs (which typically includes the roof membrane) and capital replacement are the typical exclusions to that. furthermore, many lease agreements are now including minimum standards and timing for much of the maintenance the tenant is expected to perform and the tenant is typically responsible for consequential costs of not complying even if the consequential costs are structural or capital in nature.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  4. #10804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Better to find out if there's a defect within the warranty period, isn't it?

    Not always the case. Warranty periods will often be a matter of simply replacing the failed parts and not mitigating more serious issues.

    Substantial defect within warranty period I generally perceive as bad news. Lemon news, faulty product news.


    The main issue here is we had a substantial rip in the roofing membrane and likely due to a recent storm with high winds. Either the material, or how it is mounted failed. So that the warranty question would then be do they just reattach and do repairs to the one section or mitigate and try to solve problem in the entire membrane. I'm betting they don't do the latter..
    i would disagree... it probably will be the latter.

    there will be a whole set of insurance companies involved each representing their client (owner, contractor, subcontractor, manufacturer, consultants and sub-consultants etc.) and all of them will be looking to see their client deemed not responsible so they can avoid paying out a claim.

    any interim measures needed to maintain the structure and prevent further damage and potential deterioration will be agreed to bur a cure isn't likely to be implemented before fault can be determined. any other course of action simply means what occurred will be likely to reoccur and that's not in anyone interests.
    Agreed its the ideal to fix it properly, but so much complexity in who pays for it, batting around fault, analysis, that the actual repairs could be awhile off and hopefully they rectify the difficulty.

    Good thing this took place in the Summer instead of more inclement conditions.


    Still no media news on this. I suspect when media does get on this concern will escalate.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  5. #10805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    most commercial lease agreements are indeed marketed as having the tenant pay for all maintenance. structural repairs (which typically includes the roof membrane) and capital replacement are the typical exclusions to that. furthermore, many lease agreements are now including minimum standards and timing for much of the maintenance the tenant is expected to perform and the tenant is typically responsible for consequential costs of not complying even if the consequential costs are structural or capital in nature.
    You're the expert so I'm sure you're right about that. However, this particular lease agreement is marketed as the tenant paying "all operating and maintenance expenses" without qualification. This is very misleading as evidenced by responses from people around here.

  6. #10806
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte
    BTW other major components within city costs are mechanical, electrical, fire suppression system, utilities, escalators, and elevators. I'm left wondering what OEG is responsible for.
    I'm wondering the same thing, if we're not misunderstanding something.

  7. #10807
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    most commercial lease agreements are indeed marketed as having the tenant pay for all maintenance. structural repairs (which typically includes the roof membrane) and capital replacement are the typical exclusions to that. furthermore, many lease agreements are now including minimum standards and timing for much of the maintenance the tenant is expected to perform and the tenant is typically responsible for consequential costs of not complying even if the consequential costs are structural or capital in nature.
    You're the expert so I'm sure you're right about that. However, this particular lease agreement is marketed as the tenant paying "all operating and maintenance expenses" without qualification. This is very misleading as evidenced by responses from people around here.
    you're confusing "without qualification" to mean "without limitation". you could lease a car with the lessor being responsible for all operating and maintenance expenses" but it's not likely to include gas and windshield washer fluid or tires. those would be considered "consumables". likewise, should you back it into a tree and need to replace the tailgate, that require a capital repair or replacement which would not be defined ad an operating or maintenance expense. a triple net lease on a building has the tenant responsible for paying all operating and maintenance expenses. that doesn't mean the tenant is responsible for any and all expenses that might arise relating to the building regardless of whether they are operating or maintenance expenses or not. that's why there is a lease that likely runs to 60 plus pages not including schedules that defines what is and what isn't included for both parties. that's not misleading, it's drafting as much certainty as possible for both parties. the entirety of the lease is not likely to be found on an internet forum (it probably has terms that forbid that kind of disclosure) just as any disputes aren't likely to be completely disclosed on an internet forum nor resolved on an internet forum. that's not misleading, that's the way it is.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #10808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    most commercial lease agreements are indeed marketed as having the tenant pay for all maintenance. structural repairs (which typically includes the roof membrane) and capital replacement are the typical exclusions to that. furthermore, many lease agreements are now including minimum standards and timing for much of the maintenance the tenant is expected to perform and the tenant is typically responsible for consequential costs of not complying even if the consequential costs are structural or capital in nature.
    You're the expert so I'm sure you're right about that. However, this particular lease agreement is marketed as the tenant paying "all operating and maintenance expenses" without qualification. This is very misleading as evidenced by responses from people around here.
    you're confusing "without qualification" to mean "without limitation". you could lease a car with the lessor being responsible for all operating and maintenance expenses" but it's not likely to include gas and windshield washer fluid or tires. those would be considered "consumables". likewise, should you back it into a tree and need to replace the tailgate, that require a capital repair or replacement which would not be defined ad an operating or maintenance expense. a triple net lease on a building has the tenant responsible for paying all operating and maintenance expenses. that doesn't mean the tenant is responsible for any and all expenses that might arise relating to the building regardless of whether they are operating or maintenance expenses or not. that's why there is a lease that likely runs to 60 plus pages not including schedules that defines what is and what isn't included for both parties. that's not misleading, it's drafting as much certainty as possible for both parties. the entirety of the lease is not likely to be found on an internet forum (it probably has terms that forbid that kind of disclosure) just as any disputes aren't likely to be completely disclosed on an internet forum nor resolved on an internet forum. that's not misleading, that's the way it is.
    I'm not confused at all.

    I'm just saying the wording on the COE website is misleading. It lacks qualifications that describe the limitations, to use your parlance.

  9. #10809
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    most commercial lease agreements are indeed marketed as having the tenant pay for all maintenance. structural repairs (which typically includes the roof membrane) and capital replacement are the typical exclusions to that. furthermore, many lease agreements are now including minimum standards and timing for much of the maintenance the tenant is expected to perform and the tenant is typically responsible for consequential costs of not complying even if the consequential costs are structural or capital in nature.
    You're the expert so I'm sure you're right about that. However, this particular lease agreement is marketed as the tenant paying "all operating and maintenance expenses" without qualification. This is very misleading as evidenced by responses from people around here.
    you're confusing "without qualification" to mean "without limitation". you could lease a car with the lessor being responsible for all operating and maintenance expenses" but it's not likely to include gas and windshield washer fluid or tires. those would be considered "consumables". likewise, should you back it into a tree and need to replace the tailgate, that require a capital repair or replacement which would not be defined ad an operating or maintenance expense. a triple net lease on a building has the tenant responsible for paying all operating and maintenance expenses. that doesn't mean the tenant is responsible for any and all expenses that might arise relating to the building regardless of whether they are operating or maintenance expenses or not. that's why there is a lease that likely runs to 60 plus pages not including schedules that defines what is and what isn't included for both parties. that's not misleading, it's drafting as much certainty as possible for both parties. the entirety of the lease is not likely to be found on an internet forum (it probably has terms that forbid that kind of disclosure) just as any disputes aren't likely to be completely disclosed on an internet forum nor resolved on an internet forum. that's not misleading, that's the way it is.
    I'm not confused at all.

    I'm just saying the wording on the COE website is misleading. It lacks qualifications that describe the limitations, to use your parlance.
    Try to FOIP the redacted schedule B which had the details you are looking for.

  10. #10810
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #10811
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,386

    Default

    Just saw the United Center, while it was built beside the old Chicago Stadium, I'm very glad Rogers is built downtown. Much more lively and doesn't have acres of empty parking lots in the off season.
    Plus Rogers will still be the best even after the KeyArena has completed renovations in Seattle.
    PS: Calgary you really need to get things together or say bye to the team.

  12. #10812
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    295

    Default

    I don't believe Rogers Place is the best now. Staples in LA is in a completely different league, among a couple others.

  13. #10813
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,663

    Default

    Rogers was over hyped from the beginning, in my opinion. It's a huge improvement on Rexall, to be sure, but I honestly don't see how it's much better than Vegas's rink, TD Gardens in Boston, the renovated MSG, or the United Center. I've been to all 4 recently, as well as the one in Arizona, and the fan experience is as good or better in any of them. Maybe the bones of Rogers have more potential, but it's obvious that many things were taken out to meet the unreal budget and schedule pressure. There is so much blank drywall and the flooring was quite obviously never intended to be simply polished concrete, given how poor it looks in many locations. In my opinion the food and beverage selection at Rogers is absolutely atrocious compared to any American NHL rink; there is not a single decent beer available at Rogers. And the entertainment/features whatever you want to call them during the game at Rogers are absolutely brutal compared to most other rinks. 50% of the time it's just panning the crowd, as Jason Gregor frequently points out.

    I'm still glad it was built and realize the realities of construction costs in Edmonton, but the hype train was ridiculous.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 31-08-2018 at 09:31 AM.

  14. #10814
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Rogers was over hyped from the beginning, in my opinion. It's a huge improvement on Rexall, to be sure, but I honestly don't see how it's much better than Vegas's rink, TD Gardens in Boston, the renovated MSG, or the United Center. I've been to all 4 recently, as well as the one in Arizona, and the fan experience is as good or better in any of them. Maybe the bones of Rogers have more potential, but it's obvious that many things were taken out to meet the unreal budget and schedule pressure. There is so much blank drywall and the flooring was quite obviously never intended to be simply polished concrete, given how poor it looks in many locations. In my opinion the food and beverage selection at Rogers is absolutely atrocious compared to any American NHL rink; there is not a single decent beer available at Rogers. And the entertainment/features whatever you want to call them during the game at Rogers are absolutely brutal compared to most other rinks. 50% of the time it's just panning the crowd, as Jason Gregor frequently points out.

    I'm still glad it was built and realize the realities of construction costs in Edmonton, but the hype train was ridiculous.
    It feels like an airport.

  15. #10815

    Default

    I continue to wonder how people are actually taking to this arena. Been to a few events now and I still don't really enjoy the place. That said I'm a 2nd tier buyer that doesn't get to experience what the top amenities are in the arena.

    I'd actually have some interest in going to Smashing Pumpkins or Jack White but probably won't. I don't see the place as a good concert venue. Sound volume is typically very low (not sure what is up with that) and somehow Rogers just lacks the entire concert experience feel of Rexall place.

    Interesting as well that no events at Rogers are selling all that well now. Is the buzz done. Both the mentioned concerts are selling extremely poorly and our only lower bowl. The Oilers have had the worst time in decades trying to sell out their dates, and Hlinka tournament had lukewarm sales.

    Just seems like not much happening at the Arena and even when it does not much excitement or sales generated.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  16. #10816
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    It is pretty amazing for concerts, the acoustics are fantastic and the variety of seating for that type of product is desirable. The only issue for me is that it is a BIG building and doesn't feel as intimate as Rexall, but that can be a very good thing too.

    For hockey, my concern is how quiet it is... but that is partially due to the play on the ice.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  17. #10817
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,663

    Default

    I think it's fine for concerts, and have found the sound quality to be far better than at Rexall personally. It seemed at Rexall they just turned it up to 11 and hoped for the best.

    Our loge location on the other hand is brutal, and they must have had enough complaints about the first half dozen loges on either side that they either no longer sell them for concerts, or give significant discounts. Nothing like being directly beside the stage with the entire band obscured by speaker stacks and rigging.

  18. #10818

    Default

    I guess I like it loud, or so I've been told. heh, used to be in a band so I like it loud, as Iggy Pop says..

    My hearing is still surprisingly good. Just prefer volume, bass rattling, all that.

    I don't mind stellar sound quality either but not at a much lower volume.



    That said its a depressing concert industry in general these days. At Rexall there used to be decades of sold out shows. Big shows, big excitement. As much as I like Jack White it would be sad to see him play a cavernous Arena with only 2k tickets sold. Pumpkins aren't doing any better. being that there would be no buzz or excitement with that sparse a crowd it really takes away from their being any atmosphere. Would rather see an act at Jubilee if its a smaller crowd.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  19. #10819
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    Winspear is my favourite for a small/mid-sized group.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  20. #10820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Winspear is my favourite for a small/mid-sized group.
    Yep. Nice acoustics, site lines in there.

    Best thing is the orchestra or choir side seats are even cheap. not sure why, those are fantastic views from there.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  21. #10821
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Rogers was over hyped from the beginning, in my opinion. It's a huge improvement on Rexall, to be sure, but I honestly don't see how it's much better than Vegas's rink, TD Gardens in Boston, the renovated MSG, or the United Center. I've been to all 4 recently, as well as the one in Arizona, and the fan experience is as good or better in any of them. Maybe the bones of Rogers have more potential, but it's obvious that many things were taken out to meet the unreal budget and schedule pressure. There is so much blank drywall and the flooring was quite obviously never intended to be simply polished concrete, given how poor it looks in many locations. In my opinion the food and beverage selection at Rogers is absolutely atrocious compared to any American NHL rink; there is not a single decent beer available at Rogers. And the entertainment/features whatever you want to call them during the game at Rogers are absolutely brutal compared to most other rinks. 50% of the time it's just panning the crowd, as Jason Gregor frequently points out.

    I'm still glad it was built and realize the realities of construction costs in Edmonton, but the hype train was ridiculous.
    Hmmmm strange....are we talking about the arena as a stand alone or are we talking about "hockey Experiences?" I've been to a ton of arena events through out, including the ones you mentioned and I'll take Rogers over 99per cent of them. The worst by far is the Coyotes rink....small crowds and terrible experience. Or how abut all of the shiny Peach travertine at Honda center....gross. Yes, Staples is kick *** but no better than Rogers.....I think buddy there only liked the fact that McDicks has all of the fast food concessions there...

    Yeah the amount of drywall is kinda insane....agreed. Beer? What's wrong wth Heineken?

  22. #10822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Rogers was over hyped from the beginning, in my opinion. It's a huge improvement on Rexall, to be sure, but I honestly don't see how it's much better than Vegas's rink, TD Gardens in Boston, the renovated MSG, or the United Center. I've been to all 4 recently, as well as the one in Arizona, and the fan experience is as good or better in any of them. Maybe the bones of Rogers have more potential, but it's obvious that many things were taken out to meet the unreal budget and schedule pressure. There is so much blank drywall and the flooring was quite obviously never intended to be simply polished concrete, given how poor it looks in many locations. In my opinion the food and beverage selection at Rogers is absolutely atrocious compared to any American NHL rink; there is not a single decent beer available at Rogers. And the entertainment/features whatever you want to call them during the game at Rogers are absolutely brutal compared to most other rinks. 50% of the time it's just panning the crowd, as Jason Gregor frequently points out.

    I'm still glad it was built and realize the realities of construction costs in Edmonton, but the hype train was ridiculous.
    Have you gone to 6 Pints up behind section 217 for beer? Sure it's not a gold standard for beer selection but they usually have 4-6 non basic beers on tap. Love the Mapleshack Cream Ale... They usually have a couple other Granville Island selections as well.

  23. #10823
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    It is pretty amazing for concerts, the acoustics are fantastic and the variety of seating for that type of product is desirable. The only issue for me is that it is a BIG building and doesn't feel as intimate as Rexall, but that can be a very good thing too.

    For hockey, my concern is how quiet it is... but that is partially due to the play on the ice.
    I think one real mistake was how the upper bowl is pulled back behind the top loge level instead of being nearly "flush" with the front of it. For loge folks it's insane the amount of room and how disconnected you can feel from the rest of the building sitting there.
    If the upper bowl was forward, they could have softened the rake and had a bit wider concourses...not sure if that would have worked with the megatron, it might have blocked the view of the ice. But, that in my opinion causes some of the "Deadness" in the building, the lower and upper bowls have this vertical and horizontal cap in between them and it somehow seems to cut off the energy.

  24. #10824

    Default

    So not a word here about this years half way Polstar rankings and Rogers Place being 156 world wide. These being the same numbers that Rexall place always sported such good concert ticket sales numbers.

    pdf file on top 200 arenas can be found here;

    https://www.pollstar.com/article/201...nalysis-135890

    Add to this that Rogers Place didn't even have ONE event in the Month of July.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  25. #10825

    Default

    The next gongshow connected to the arena is the COE, the proverbial owner, not even taking advantage of its 28 days of free events per year which was actually negotiated and heavily sold to Edmontonians as one of the perks the city got in this arena deal. its hardly even being used. You'd think we would have heard more about this until now. Its finally been outed. years of under use by the COE so far on behalf of Edmontonians;


    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...place-not-used


    This is another bombshell. Does this city do anything right? This is inexcusable in the case of a new arena that a lot of Edmontonians have still not seen and many of which can't afford the price of tickets to typical events at the arena. Again this 28 days that were negotiated was cited as a reason for this Arena deal to be made. That this was value back for Edmontonians to be able to enjoy events at the Arena that the city put on. Well, the city isn't really doing that.


    The Arena is supposed to be a DT catalyst. The 28 days City use was also a part of that vision, of bringing people downtown. Most uses have been for such limited things like limited soirees or public skates. The out of town viewing parties were NOT COE used days. The City, as per the agreement cannot charge for tickets to these free use events.

    The COE is basically dropping the ball here entirely. They can't even think of what events to really hold there and the ones they are are not entirely consistent with the vision of opening this facility up to the public for free use.
    Last edited by Replacement; 04-09-2018 at 06:04 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #10826
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,161
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  27. #10827
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Meh, could care less. Not sure what kind of "free" events the city could organize which citizens could care less about? Have a pizza party for 18,000 kids? Bring in Tony Robbins to talk about whatever he talks about. Or how about the homeless, lets bring them in, shower, feed and clothe them. See where I'm going with this? Name something that someone somewhere would come and attend?

    As far as NOT having any events scheduled - how is that the City's or Katz's problem? If there are no tours, there's no tours - "hey U2 - yeah we know Edmonton isn't on your tour list, but would you mind coming here and playing a show to make Replacement happy?"

  28. #10828
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,936

    Default

    A good example of no tours or not the right tours being around is if you noticed that there wasn't any Stadium shows this year. Unfortunately anyone doing Stadium tours right now either were no where near Edmonton this year or they had already recently had a show in Edmonton. Just because there may be openings doesn't mean that a tour will rearrange their schedule to accommodate the venue.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  29. #10829

    Default

    The COE days are free days and for free events. The COE cannot technically charge admission. So not tours as such but why not something like a civic movie night. Instead of doing the cheap *** inflatable thing in some public square why not connect with Community leagues that all have these and just have a few at Rogers place.

    Or let Firefly theater do another large aerial demonstration and performance there (they were at Sarah McLachlan, July 1st 2017 Canada day show. (not one of the free days)


    Or a battle of the bands.


    or have it as a festival venue one night for each fest. have a folk fest act perform or heritage festival performances, anything. Even simulcast some stuff.

    Once a month host City council proceedings and open the doors as a comedy act. So that more people can share in the mirth of council proceedings. An added skit feature could be Mayor Iveson banging the Chuck Barris Gong everytime a City staffer reports to council..I promise, people would laugh..




    Once a month they should have it as an open house and complete with Civic videos, Chamber of Commerce type Videos of City facilities, things to do, places to see. These videos are actually made and not used much. Do an open house and have continuous stream videos of Edmonton, events, jasper, etc. Use the damn large screen for something.
    Last edited by Replacement; 04-09-2018 at 08:59 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  30. #10830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The next gongshow connected to the arena is the COE, the proverbial owner, not even taking advantage of its 28 days of free events per year which was actually negotiated and heavily sold to Edmontonians as one of the perks the city got in this arena deal. its hardly even being used. You'd think we would have heard more about this until now. Its finally been outed. years of under use by the COE so far on behalf of Edmontonians;


    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...place-not-used


    This is another bombshell. Does this city do anything right? This is inexcusable in the case of a new arena that a lot of Edmontonians have still not seen and many of which can't afford the price of tickets to typical events at the arena. Again this 28 days that were negotiated was cited as a reason for this Arena deal to be made. That this was value back for Edmontonians to be able to enjoy events at the Arena that the city put on. Well, the city isn't really doing that.


    The Arena is supposed to be a DT catalyst. The 28 days City use was also a part of that vision, of bringing people downtown. Most uses have been for such limited things like limited soirees or public skates. The out of town viewing parties were NOT COE used days. The City, as per the agreement cannot charge for tickets to these free use events.

    The COE is basically dropping the ball here entirely. They can't even think of what events to really hold there and the ones they are are not entirely consistent with the vision of opening this facility up to the public for free use.
    I suspect the reasons have something to do with this:

    "The city can’t charge admission,..."

    combined with this:

    "...and must cover any fees for supervision, security, audio-visual technology and concessions."

    Which means that any "free" use of the arena will actually end up costing the city money.

  31. #10831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The next gongshow connected to the arena is the COE, the proverbial owner, not even taking advantage of its 28 days of free events per year which was actually negotiated and heavily sold to Edmontonians as one of the perks the city got in this arena deal. its hardly even being used. You'd think we would have heard more about this until now. Its finally been outed. years of under use by the COE so far on behalf of Edmontonians;


    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...place-not-used


    This is another bombshell. Does this city do anything right? This is inexcusable in the case of a new arena that a lot of Edmontonians have still not seen and many of which can't afford the price of tickets to typical events at the arena. Again this 28 days that were negotiated was cited as a reason for this Arena deal to be made. That this was value back for Edmontonians to be able to enjoy events at the Arena that the city put on. Well, the city isn't really doing that.


    The Arena is supposed to be a DT catalyst. The 28 days City use was also a part of that vision, of bringing people downtown. Most uses have been for such limited things like limited soirees or public skates. The out of town viewing parties were NOT COE used days. The City, as per the agreement cannot charge for tickets to these free use events.

    The COE is basically dropping the ball here entirely. They can't even think of what events to really hold there and the ones they are are not entirely consistent with the vision of opening this facility up to the public for free use.
    I suspect the reasons have something to do with this:

    "The city can’t charge admission,..."

    combined with this:

    "...and must cover any fees for supervision, security, audio-visual technology and concessions."

    Which means that any "free" use of the arena will actually end up costing the city money.
    I'm well aware of that. If the Cities sum assessment is that Rogers place free openings, as agreed upon, and negotiated on, are not worth the impetus of showing the arena to visitors, residents through such things as open house....then why was this built and COE funded as a DT catalyst?

    The whole point of the DT arena is the supposed value added in drawing people to the DT. Is that logic now missed, or was it false promotion all along?


    Am I now to believe there is no net value in even having it open for people to come and see? Really?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #10832
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glendroid View Post
    Have you gone to 6 Pints up behind section 217 for beer? Sure it's not a gold standard for beer selection but they usually have 4-6 non basic beers on tap. Love the Mapleshack Cream Ale... They usually have a couple other Granville Island selections as well.
    Never been a fan of Granville Island, their beers are extremely mediocre.

    Quote Originally Posted by maclac
    What's wrong wth Heineken?


    Nothing, really. It used to be one of my go-to's before I got in to craft beers. Granville Island aside, there's not anything even remotely crafty there. And yes I realize it's because they have a deal with Molson Coors, but it still remains the case that at the other rinks I mentioned they did have a selection of local craft beers in addition to the usual Budweiser etc. It would be great to see Yellowhead, Alley Kat, Bent Stick, Bench Creek, Troubled Monk, Situation, or any of a large number of other local or near-local brews available. Instead, we get Belgian Moon.

  33. #10833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ...

    Am I now to believe there is no net value in even having it open for people to come and see? Really?
    I'm sure that you, of all people, understand this to be self evident. The novelty factor of a building like this has a half life of a few weeks at most.

  34. #10834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ...

    Am I now to believe there is no net value in even having it open for people to come and see? Really?
    I'm sure that you, of all people, understand this to be self evident. The novelty factor of a building like this has a half life of a few weeks at most.
    That's my untypical own opinion. Such facilities have little value to me. That said facilities like this host open houses, regularly, all around the week and some every week. People actually go to these things, and travel to see and go to these things. As strange as that is.


    Generally the buzz factor for a new facility lasts a few years. From polls a large amount of Edmontonians have never even been inside. have not had a chance to look around. There should be some free opportunity to do so. Its really incumbent on the City to provide that now on behalf of the public.


    One of the few vestiges even resembling City ownership in the Arena deal is the city having 28 free use days/year in the contract. I agree with the article, and with Andrew Knack, that its more wasteful not to be using that. That was one of the very few public benefits served in even having a COE financed DT arena.
    Last edited by Replacement; 04-09-2018 at 09:43 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  35. #10835

    Default

    Perhaps Mr. Katz could do us a public service and amend the agreement to allow the city to at least charge enough to cover the costs of using the venue. Otherwise, these "free" days will continue to go unused, as there is only so much money in the budget, and covering the operating costs for the arena for an event can't be cheap. If the city could coordinate with the United Way or other charities for events and charge an appropriate admission, that would be ideal.

  36. #10836
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,477

    Default

    HaHa! When you make a deal with the devil you are kind of stuck with it.

  37. #10837
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    Arena District Local Advisory Meeting tonight.

    -Rogers will now be humidified!
    -More urinal conversions on the second level
    -Operational modifications to improve the building
    -Circulation improvements have been made
    -Experience improvements
    -77,000sqft plaza, up to 8000 people + year-round programming, skating rink with ice plant to extend the season, stage, AV.
    -Opens spring 2020
    -Significant work with various agencies, groups, to have positive impacts on both the surrounding community and community at large.
    -COE washroom pilot project will continue and expand to Alex D Park
    -27 major events/concerts/sporting between now and Oct 31 with an expected total attendance of around 260,000 people.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  38. #10838
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    'Downtown Community Rink was the busiest single pad arena in the city'.
    Users:
    -COE public access/skate-354hrs (fall/winter 2017/201 vs. 33hr city avg.(single sheet)
    -OEG hockey-431hrs
    -OEG other-105hrs
    -MacEwan-550hrs
    -Adult groups-397hrs
    -Minors group-157hrs
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  39. #10839
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    Wonderful to hear that the @SkateCanada CanSkate program will be expanded at the Community Rink moving forward & be a cornerstone of its community benefit.Excellent to see this being realized.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  40. #10840

    Default

    Any news on Tower B?

  41. #10841
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    Community Arena

    380pairs of skates available, helmets, trainer sleds etc., moms and tots, shinny, fitness skating, community skates, learn to skate...

    https://www.edmonton.ca/activities_p...ity-arena.aspx
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  42. #10842
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seandroid View Post
    Any news on Tower B?
    This fall.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  43. #10843
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Arena District Local Advisory Meeting tonight.

    -Rogers will now be humidified!
    -More urinal conversions on the second level
    -Operational modifications to improve the building
    -Circulation improvements have been made
    -Experience improvements
    -77,000sqft plaza, up to 8000 people + year-round programming, skating rink with ice plant to extend the season, stage, AV.
    -Opens spring 2020
    -Significant work with various agencies, groups, to have positive impacts on both the surrounding community and community at large.
    -COE washroom pilot project will continue and expand to Alex D Park
    -27 major events/concerts/sporting between now and Oct 31 with an expected total attendance of around 260,000 people.
    Urinal conversions are great, but how about them bowels?
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  44. #10844
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,161

    Default

    I'm glad there's continuing renovations where needed.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  45. #10845

    Default

    Only a year+ late on the plaza... no biggie.

  46. #10846
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    They need Tower B to have its crane removed to have it be open for business.... so a little while yet since it has not started, but expect it to this fall.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  47. #10847

    Default

    Part of it could be use no? 104 will still be a street and the crane can be situated to function from the west side of 104 st and swing all west. I think JWM and Stantec precautionary were more the reason. Once stantec's crane come down, hoarding goes up, east of 104 could be used... unless that part was transfered over to the new contractor to finish?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  48. #10848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    They need Tower B to have its crane removed to have it be open for business.... so a little while yet since it has not started, but expect it to this fall.
    I didn't think the Tower B site had a crane. Did you mean Stantec?

  49. #10849
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    Tower B will have a crane once again and did have one...Greyhound portion.

    ^^103st you mean and yes, a small portion will be available, but not as a plaza, simply access.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  50. #10850

    Default

    Yes 103! I gather east side of 103 and eastward then?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  51. #10851
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    Parts, but not all and still a giant construction site overall.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  52. #10852

    Default

    Also, Tower B will be a different contractor.
    www.decl.org

  53. #10853
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,936

    Default

    Although will there not be also access at street level between the Marriot and Stantec? Also the pedway from Edmonton Tower will hopefully be open too.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  54. #10854
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    Correct.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  55. #10855

    Default

    so in reality, The plaza likely wont be open until at least 2021, which puts it at least 2 years past due.

  56. #10856
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,806

    Default

    Spring 2020.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

Page 109 of 109 FirstFirst ... 95999105106107108109

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •