You responded to "Lucky Luke" who said:
"Melnyk says that the current building wasn't built to last 30 years...
Unreal..."
... and your response to him was flying off the handle, saying "That is unequivocally horse ****."
You call him a pathological liar and whatnot, it has been thoroughly argued up to this point. What is precisely wrong with the building lasting 40 years? How old is Nassau Colisuem?
a) OK, wait. Let's be clear on one thing: I'm not calling Luke ANYTHING. Luke seems like a nice guy. I was using Luke's post about Melnyk's quote as a jumping off point to discuss Melnyk's quote. I didn't feel the need to correct Luke's "30 year" claim to the accurate "35-40" that Melnyk mentioned, because I didn't think it was really relevant to the argument, but if anyone is miffed that I omitted that step, I apologize. Didn't seem to matter at the time. I'm calling Melnyk a liar, not Luke. You're cool, Luke. We good.
b) Nassau is 45 years old.
c) I personally think that there's nothing wrong whatsoever with a 40-year lifecycle for an arena. One of the major reason the older arenas like Nassau and Northlands are so out of date is because they were built before the necessity to include press boxes and cater to potential corporate income sources. What's wrong with the building lasting 40 years? Well, from a structural standpoint, nothing! Are you saying a 40 year old arena is bad, or good? I'm not sure. I'm saying it's absolutely reasonable to get 40 years out of a building of this sort. Now, whether or not it's profitable to stay where they are because of LOCATION is another argument completely. I'm all for the Sens moving to Lebreton because it makes sense financially, and makes sense for the city. Sure.
He said thanks to what they invest in the building it looks the way it does. I suppose if you ran it to the ground, yes, in 30 - 40 years, the place would be rundown and in need of major renovation. The building is 18 years old and another 22 or so years, why so outlandish?
OK, wait. I think we're on the same page here.
First of all - I agree, 40 years is fine from a structural & upkeep standpoint! I'm arguing exactly the same things here.
Secondly - this is the first time,
right now, in this post (both here, and in the above paragraph), that I've talked about my personal opinions on the potential for a 40-year lifespan. Literally every single post I've made up to now has been made in the context of "I was told two different stories about the lifespan which cannot both be true, because they contradict eachother". If we want to talk about my limited opinion on the ongoing feasibility of the structural integrity of the building and it's expected rate of degradation, that's fine... but I'm probably the wrong guy to do anything more than give my best uneducated guess. Of course, why you're using it as a point against me in previous posts I've made today, when I haven't mentioned it at all, seems curious. I haven't been arguing Melnyk's claim from the point of view of an engineer. I am not an engineer. I am just a guy that got told one thing, then got told the opposite thing.
I just don't see how you think he is a "friggin pathological liar". It was a clear, concise interview and still people out there rip the owner for no reason.
I am saying that he's a liar because I have heard two contradictory arguments, and they both can't be right. Either the building was built for a 35-40 year lifespan, or it wasn't. I have heard both arguments in the span of 4 years: first it was, now it's not.
This was a clear, concise interview, that completely contradicts the information I was given before. I'm not ripping the owner for what he said, I'm ripping the owner because he's presented two versions of a fact that both can't be true. If you are at a red light, you can't turn left AND right. A building can't be "built for at least a 35-40 year lifespan" but also "not built for a 35-40 lifecycle".
I'm having a really, really, really, really hard time understanding how my argument is not clear as day. I can't break this down any easier than this: "Team said one thing 4 years ago. Team says the opposite now. Only one can be true, which by definition means the other thing is untrue."