PDA

View Full Version : New Downtown Calgary Arena


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

shogged
Mar 29, 2014, 6:55 PM
Smooth play by ken king for sure.

Fuzz
Mar 29, 2014, 8:17 PM
To summarize:
-hockey and/or football arena plans will be revealed this year
-the owners are suggesting that we might have a shot at another olympic bid if a stadium is funded
-no new details on location or design

I find that highly amusing, considering how bad the owners don't want NHL players in the Olympics. "Buy us an NHL stadium, and you can use it for the Olympics we won't let our players play in!"

Spring2008
Mar 29, 2014, 8:37 PM
This would have to be west village. Only area with room for new arena, stadium, other venues, and an Olympic Village. I think Unibrain also mentioned there's some big plans in the work for this area recently. Would keep things interesting construction wise in this part of town for awhile anyways.

Barnes
Mar 29, 2014, 8:40 PM
I find that highly amusing, considering how bad the owners don't want NHL players in the Olympics. "Buy us an NHL stadium, and you can use it for the Olympics we won't let our players play in!"

They don't?

Tills13
Mar 29, 2014, 9:01 PM
My Dad is traveling with one of the owners next week I'll let you guys know what he tells me.

suburbia
Mar 29, 2014, 10:26 PM
I find that highly amusing, considering how bad the owners don't want NHL players in the Olympics. "Buy us an NHL stadium, and you can use it for the Olympics we won't let our players play in!"

If it includes an actual stadium, and if the high-speed rail comes into play, it could be an Alberta bid for a summer Olympics. Would still be a major stretch, but I think the world could be ready for a less than over the top Olympics, perhaps making it possible for the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. McMahon would be a soccer venue with a renovation, and Edmonton has some useful facilities. Wonder if the Olympic Oval could be utilized for some things?

Would be easiest to bid for winter, but Vancouver just had it. We wouldn't be in the running for twenty years I'd think.

O-tacular
Mar 30, 2014, 12:51 AM
This would have to be west village. Only area with room for new arena, stadium, other venues, and an Olympic Village. I think Unibrain also mentioned there's some big plans in the work for this area recently. Would keep things interesting construction wise in this part of town for awhile anyways.

Do you think a west village arena would necessitate an upgrade to the outdated interchange of Bow Tr. and Crowchild? I'm still skeptical the city will chip in just cause they do a song and dance about an Olympic bid. I'd actually be pissed if this got funding before the lrt green line.

bigcanuck
Mar 30, 2014, 1:51 AM
Druh Farrell is looking for a little input on Twitter:

"Question: Do you support spending public dollars for a new stadium and arena in#yyc?"

Tills13
Mar 30, 2014, 4:23 AM
If it includes an actual stadium, and if the high-speed rail comes into play, it could be an Alberta bid for a summer Olympics. Would still be a major stretch, but I think the world could be ready for a less than over the top Olympics, perhaps making it possible for the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. McMahon would be a soccer venue with a renovation, and Edmonton has some useful facilities. Wonder if the Olympic Oval could be utilized for some things?

Would be easiest to bid for winter, but Vancouver just had it. We wouldn't be in the running for twenty years I'd think.

Keep in mind Vancouver was considered wildly successful by, well most people. I think Canada could easily get another Olympics after Vancouver.

Tills13
Mar 30, 2014, 4:34 AM
Druh Farrell is looking for a little input on Twitter:

"Question: Do you support spending public dollars for a new stadium and arena in#yyc?"

there are a number of pretty sad responses to that tweet, at the moment.

Wooster
Mar 30, 2014, 5:19 AM
I'll just note that 3 of the 6 owners of the flames\stamps are in the top 100 wealthiest Canadians and are billionaires.

Murray Edwards and Clay Riddell alone are worth a combined $5.75 billion.

93JC
Mar 30, 2014, 3:04 PM
there are a number of pretty sad responses to that tweet, at the moment.

The responses look pretty reasonable to me: "Gov't has no business in professional sport", "no. Let's keep fixing transit and improving infrastructure", "Hell no. Massive sports junkie, but not in support of subsidizing wealthy. All econ studies show that they don't help public $$$", "nope. City infrastructure (transit, etc) which all citizens benefit from should be priority, city has no business in pro sport." I can't find fault with any of those responses.

count0
Mar 30, 2014, 3:37 PM
I think a new arena would be a valuable amenity to the city, but there is a fine line between providing funding for this vs corporate welfare. I see no reason why this project couldn't go ahead without the government pitching in, and if the government did pitch in I think the government should get some equity in the project (ie a share of the profits generated by the new arena). If the owners are looking for a handout without giving up something in return, then I'd say absolutely not.

Tropics
Mar 30, 2014, 3:51 PM
Indeed, those responses are exactly what they should be.

Spending "ANY" public money on the actual arena would be flat out robbery of the tax payers because I can assure you that in no way would the majority of tax payers vote to spend that money if they were given the choice.

BUT, what the city SHOULD pay for whether the arena goes into West Village "or not" is fixing the Bow Trail/Crowchild interchange. That is definitely something the city IS responsible for and that is an area of our transportation infrastructure that needs serious re-design "before" development in West Village begins to handcuff re-design options. Instead of giving the Flames any money, spend that money on fixing that instead. The sooner the better.

Ramsayfarian
Mar 30, 2014, 5:03 PM
Smooth play by ken king for sure.

No kidding. There's a huge gap between bidding on and actual hosting the Olympics.

H.E.Pennypacker
Mar 30, 2014, 5:11 PM
Do you think a west village arena would necessitate an upgrade to the outdated interchange of Bow Tr. and Crowchild? I'm still skeptical the city will chip in just cause they do a song and dance about an Olympic bid. I'd actually be pissed if this got funding before the lrt green line.

Me too .. Although if it meant a major upgrade to fix Bow Tr and Crowchild, it wouldn't be as terrible

O-tacular
Mar 30, 2014, 5:44 PM
Indeed, those responses are exactly what they should be.

Spending "ANY" public money on the actual arena would be flat out robbery of the tax payers because I can assure you that in no way would the majority of tax payers vote to spend that money if they were given the choice.

BUT, what the city SHOULD pay for whether the arena goes into West Village "or not" is fixing the Bow Trail/Crowchild interchange. That is definitely something the city IS responsible for and that is an area of our transportation infrastructure that needs serious re-design "before" development in West Village begins to handcuff re-design options. Instead of giving the Flames any money, spend that money on fixing that instead. The sooner the better.

Agreed.

O-tacular
Mar 30, 2014, 5:47 PM
I'll just note that 3 of the 6 owners of the flames\stamps are in the top 100 wealthiest Canadians and are billionaires.

Murray Edwards and Clay Riddell alone are worth a combined $5.75 billion.

Definition of corporate welfare, and I love the Flames. I'm sorry, but even a kick ass new complex would only be a drop in the bucket to these guys. As much as Edmonton's getting an awesome new arena, the precedent set by Daryl Katz leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

artvandelay
Mar 30, 2014, 8:34 PM
The hockey arena should be privately financed. Having said that I wouldn't mind public dollars going towards the stadium component and infrastructure upgrades.

Socguy
Mar 30, 2014, 8:52 PM
Katz may have set the trend for Alberta but he's just following a trend that's been ongoing for a while in North American. Times are changing and the reality is that most new sports facilities will either be built with some level of public financing or not at all. :(

As for the idea that these facilities are never worth the investment, I'm on the fence. This to me can go either way with everything riding on how it's done. Edmonton has great plans for their new arena and how to integrate and leverage it within it's new location. With the way they're proceeding I believe that it will bring about massive positive change for that city and it's downtown. If I lived in Edmonton I would be 100% for spending public money on the thing because I think the benefits will be there.

As for Calgary, I would be against spending public money on a new arena because, unless someone can show me otherwise, I don't see the same benefit available to Calgary.

count0
Mar 30, 2014, 9:13 PM
Katz may have set the trend for Alberta but he's just following a trend that's been ongoing for a while in North American. Times are changing and the reality is that most new sports facilities will either be built with some level of public financing or not at all. :(

As for the idea that these facilities are never worth the investment, I'm on the fence. This to me can go either way with everything riding on how it's done. Edmonton has great plans for their new arena and how to integrate and leverage it within it's new location. With the way they're proceeding I believe that it will bring about massive positive change for that city and it's downtown. If I lived in Edmonton I would be 100% for spending public money on the thing because I think the benefits will be there.

As for Calgary, I would be against spending public money on a new arena because, unless someone can show me otherwise, I don't see the same benefit available to Calgary.

My understanding of what basically happened in Edmonton. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

-Katz buys a pile of property in downtown Edmonton to develop
-Katz proposes to build a new arena
-Edmonton not totally sold
-Katz throws a hissy fit, implies Edmonton could lose it's hockey team, hires consultants to invent numbers to justify value of new arena
-Edmonton is like "ok fine"
-Katz gets arena funded
-Katz sees the value of his development property increase significantly

Calgary should be very skeptical if the Flames are following this precedent.

Tills13
Mar 30, 2014, 9:53 PM
The hockey arena should be privately financed. Having said that I wouldn't mind public dollars going towards the stadium component and infrastructure upgrades.

That's the city's and the province's stand, but the owners, last I heard, were trying to get both levels of government to chip in something like 50%.

And I don't buy that arenas aren't economically beneficial to a community. Someone show me a study.

bt04ku
Mar 30, 2014, 10:25 PM
And I don't buy that arenas aren't economically beneficial to a community. Someone show me a study.

I don't have the study on hand, but it's not that they don't benefit the area economically, it is that they don't create new business overall. Arenas and stadiums can direct entertainment dollars being spent, but if the stadium/arena wasn't there the same money would be spent, just in different places.

Aegis
Mar 30, 2014, 10:28 PM
And I don't buy that arenas aren't economically beneficial to a community. Someone show me a study.

It really depends on how you define the scope of the "benefits". A lot of businesses provide benefits to the community, and they don't ask for, or get government funding. Yes, some low-wage jobs and the associated tax revenue are created by a stadium. Some other economic activity is created, the benefits of which flow to the team's owners. Perhaps there's an argument to be made that the government can play a role in making it easier for a business of this size to operate. But, they already do that in other ways (low-tax environment, public infrastructure.) The situation is entirely different if the government has to borrow funds to build the arena. It's then a case of a business downloading business risk on to the taxpayer. This is every team owner's end goal with these proposals. If the team fails to gain the support of the community, at least the owner doesn't have the debt associated with the stadium. Many of the municipalities in the US that built new stadiums for new hockey teams in the early-mid 1990s are now stuck with a mountain of debt and little public interest in the team for which the facility was built. In those cases, the stadium wasn't beneficial to the community.

Indeed, the Flames have been "working on the arena" for years. The work consists of buying all of the other professional sports teams in Calgary so that they have maximum leverage over the politicians when the time comes to ask for a handout.

Let's face it: there's not exactly a lineup of cities in the US begging for NHL franchises, and Quebec doesn't have the money to fund a team. The Flames really can't try to get any leverage out of threatening to move the team. I saw on Global News the other day that Ken King was throwing the word "Olympic" around, trying to draw a connection between the taxpayer paying for a facility for his team and Calgary hosting the Olympics again. Clearly, there's a lot more that goes into a successful Olympic bid than that.

The Flames make a profit, and they deserve to. But, if they can afford to pay millions of dollars to a single player, they don't need the taxpayer to pay for the arena. If there's a business case to be made for it, they will have no problem finding private investors willing to take the risk. When no private investors are willing to take those risks, one needs to ask if there's any reason why the government should.

The Fisher Account
Mar 30, 2014, 11:46 PM
My understanding of what basically happened in Edmonton. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

-Katz buys a pile of property in downtown Edmonton to develop
-Katz proposes to build a new arena
-Edmonton not totally sold
-Katz throws a hissy fit, implies Edmonton could lose it's hockey team, hires consultants to invent numbers to justify value of new arena
-Edmonton is like "ok fine"
-Katz gets arena funded
-Katz sees the value of his development property increase significantly

Calgary should be very skeptical if the Flames are following this precedent.


If I can take a piss and buy a beer without having to miss 17 minutes each period, it's worth it.

Fuzz
Mar 31, 2014, 3:05 AM
If someone can show directing funding to an arena is more beneficial to the city that putting that money towards an LRT, I'd be very surprised. Sorry, the players, owners and league are rolling in cash. Just look at what broadcast rights just sold for. They can afford it, they would rather spend our money first.

O-tacular
Mar 31, 2014, 3:42 AM
If someone can show directing funding to an arena is more beneficial to the city that putting that money towards an LRT, I'd be very surprised. Sorry, the players, owners and league are rolling in cash. Just look at what broadcast rights just sold for. They can afford it, they would rather spend our money first.

I agree. The billionaire owners of these teams should be the ones building these stadiums since they can clearly afford to and are poised to benefit the most from the new venue. Hoarding their own money while asking the taxpayers to subsidize their dream seems very lopsided.

suburbia
Mar 31, 2014, 3:47 AM
Keep in mind Vancouver was considered wildly successful by, well most people. I think Canada could easily get another Olympics after Vancouver.

Oh I don't doubt that - but the IOC would likely wait at least 20 years between the same country getting the same olympics.

Tills13
Mar 31, 2014, 4:14 AM
I don't have the study on hand, but it's not that they don't benefit the area economically, it is that they don't create new business overall. Arenas and stadiums can direct entertainment dollars being spent, but if the stadium/arena wasn't there the same money would be spent, just in different places.

the thing about Calgary, though, is the Saddledome is the premier venue for the Stampede, which brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It's not that there wouldn't be a Stampede without it, but let's face it - the 'dome brings high profile names to Calgary during that time.

Tills13
Mar 31, 2014, 4:15 AM
If someone can show directing funding to an arena is more beneficial to the city that putting that money towards an LRT, I'd be very surprised. Sorry, the players, owners and league are rolling in cash. Just look at what broadcast rights just sold for. They can afford it, they would rather spend our money first.

nevermind.


now hold on. A new leg of the LRT is going to cost $50 billion. A new arena $1 billion MAX.

Chadillaccc
Mar 31, 2014, 4:25 AM
now hold on. A new leg of the LRT is going to cost $50 billion. A new arena $1 billion MAX.


$50 billion? Woah, where did you come up with that number?

Even the Eglington Crosstown LRT in Toronto, which is mostly underground, is going to cost less than $5 billion. We could build the NC Line from 20 Avenue underground down Centre and under downtown up 2nd Street (less than 4 km of tunnel total), the entire phase one SE section to Quarry Park, and the 8th Avenue Subway all for $5 billion.

Tills13
Mar 31, 2014, 4:40 AM
$50 billion? Woah, where did you come up with that number?

Even the Eglington Crosstown LRT in Toronto, which is mostly underground, is going to cost less than $5 billion. We could build the NC Line from 20 Avenue underground down Centre and under downtown up 2nd Street (less than 4 km of tunnel total), the entire phase one SE section to Quarry Park, and the 8th Avenue Subway all for $5 billion.

Wasn't the South leg of the LRT to cost something ridiculous like that?

edit: that's my bad, it's only $8 billion.

count0
Mar 31, 2014, 2:37 PM
Wasn't the South leg of the LRT to cost something ridiculous like that?

edit: that's my bad, it's only $8 billion.

You are still WAY off. The south end of green line LRT is $2b, and the entire green line (North and South) is $5b. I believe the $8b number you are referring to is for the entire route ahead transit plan, which includes the Stephan Ave Subway and the West LRT expansion. Those projects aren't expected to happen for >20years!

I'm actually for the government providing some level of funding for the arena, but it can't be a handout justified by "possible Olympic bid". Accepting government dollars means giving something up of value in return, IE the government gets to choose where to build it to maximize value to the city (rather than maximize value to the Flames) in addition to an equity stake in the project. However, I don't think the Flames would be so keen on seeking government funding of they had to give up a proportional amount of the profits associated with building the arena back to the government.

Just saying that companies seem to be all about "keeping the government out of business" until it comes time to ask for a handout!

MichaelS
Mar 31, 2014, 2:49 PM
That's the city's and the province's stand, but the owners, last I heard, were trying to get both levels of government to chip in something like 50%.

And I don't buy that arenas aren't economically beneficial to a community. Someone show me a study.

Maybe not a "study", but a well written and referenced blog post:
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/5/8/the-pitfalls-of-entertainment-districts.html#.UzmAK6hdXAk

Do you have a study that shows quantifiable cost/benefits for government investment? I feel if someone is asking for hundreds of millions of dollars, the onus should be on them to prove it is worth it, not on the provider to prove it is not worth it.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 31, 2014, 2:52 PM
Lots of things government spends money on shows little directly attributable cost/benefit.

If we had a winning team it may be easier to fund through personal seat licenses - anyone know how long the seasons ticket waiting list is?

count0
Mar 31, 2014, 2:57 PM
Lots of things government spends money on shows little directly attributable cost/benefit.

If we had a winning team it may be easier to fund through personal seat licenses - anyone know how long the seasons ticket waiting list is?

All the less reason for the government to be involved. Flames are profitable enough to do this without government support.

artvandelay
Mar 31, 2014, 3:20 PM
The only major sporting facilities in Canada that have successfully funded privately have been NHL arenas in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. I think that is doable here as well, given the level of corporate support in the city. Every CFL or MLB stadium in Canada has been built with government support, so if we want a new stadium (which is needed more than a new arena) we are going to need some type of government contribution.

Cage
Mar 31, 2014, 3:46 PM
The only major sporting facilities in Canada that have successfully funded privately have been NHL arenas in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. I think that is doable here as well, given the level of corporate support in the city. Every CFL or MLB stadium in Canada has been built with government support, so if we want a new stadium (which is needed more than a new arena) we are going to need some type of government contribution.

Agreed.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression the Saddledome is owned by Saddledome Foundation, which legally ultimately rolls up to City of Calgary with representatives from Winsport, Province of Alberta, Hockey Canada, Calgary Exchibition and Stampede. The Calgary flames operate and manage the arena on behalf of the Saddledome Foundation. The other purpose of the Saddledome Foundation is to dole out the proceeds from the naming rights.

So where am I going with all the Foundation stuff? Because the Saddledome Foundation is a not for profit entity of the city, they likely pay little to no business and property taxes. However if a private arena were built, the city would have a huge windfall in municipal taxation schemes. The Flames are likely to go to council asking for some form of tax relief.

The question is (and the question brought before Edmonton council) is what to do about the taxation relief. Edmonton brought about the Community Revitalization Levy to handle the taxation issue. The question to Calgary is should the city provide tax relief in perpetuity to Calgary Flames or should the city put up money for the arena but also require the new arena to pay civic taxes.

O-tacular
Mar 31, 2014, 3:50 PM
You are still WAY off. The south end of green line LRT is $2b, and the entire green line (North and South) is $5b. I believe the $8b number you are referring to is for the entire route ahead transit plan, which includes the Stephan Ave Subway and the West LRT expansion. Those projects aren't expected to happen for >20years!

I'm actually for the government providing some level of funding for the arena, but it can't be a handout justified by "possible Olympic bid". Accepting government dollars means giving something up of value in return, IE the government gets to choose where to build it to maximize value to the city (rather than maximize value to the Flames) in addition to an equity stake in the project. However, I don't think the Flames would be so keen on seeking government funding of they had to give up a proportional amount of the profits associated with building the arena back to the government.

Just saying that companies seem to be all about "keeping the government out of business" until it comes time to ask for a handout!

This.

red_179
Mar 31, 2014, 4:10 PM
The only major sporting facilities in Canada that have successfully funded privately have been NHL arenas in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. I think that is doable here as well, given the level of corporate support in the city. Every CFL or MLB stadium in Canada has been built with government support, so if we want a new stadium (which is needed more than a new arena) we are going to need some type of government contribution.

Calgary really does need a new stadium and another thing to keep in mind, in addition to the potential Olympic bid, is that Canada is planning on bidding for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, so perhaps there might be some federal money available.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 31, 2014, 4:38 PM
All the less reason for the government to be involved. Flames are profitable enough to do this without government support.
I'm not really sure this is the case, but it is really hard to tell. I doubt they are generating enough free cash flow to pay for an arena without raising ticket prices, especially if the Saddledome stayed around.

200 events a year over 30 years to pay maybe $600 million (with very favourable interest, $1 billion). Around $10 a seat as a capital charge gets it done, if you can sell more than 16k tickets to every event.

93JC
Mar 31, 2014, 5:43 PM
And I don't buy that arenas aren't economically beneficial to a community. Someone show me a study.

http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/anderson/micro-principles/stadiums.pdf

http://www.amazon.ca/Sports-Jobs-Taxes-Roger-Noll/dp/0815761112/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396287790&sr=8-1&keywords=sports%2C+jobs+and+taxes

Show me a study that says they are an "economic benefit".

93JC
Mar 31, 2014, 5:49 PM
I'm not really sure this is the case, but it is really hard to tell. I doubt they are generating enough free cash flow to pay for an arena without raising ticket prices, especially if the Saddledome stayed around.

200 events a year over 30 years to pay maybe $600 million (with very favourable interest, $1 billion). Around $10 a seat as a capital charge gets it done, if you can sell more than 16k tickets to every event.

You're counting ticket revenue as the only revenue. Parking, concessions, merchandise, advertising, broadcast agreements: all of these things bring in a great deal of money.

Jay in Cowtown
Mar 31, 2014, 9:02 PM
the thing about Calgary, though, is the Saddledome is the premier venue for the Stampede, which brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It's not that there wouldn't be a Stampede without it, but let's face it - the 'dome brings high profile names to Calgary during that time.

The Stampede has a premeire venue for concerts during the Stampede... it's called the Grandstand! If they'd take a page out of the Cheyenne Frontier Day's or Rodeo Houston's playbook and add a main stage act to the wagon races every night instead of that ridiculous 'young Canadians' show... they'd be golden!

suburbia
Mar 31, 2014, 9:25 PM
You're counting ticket revenue as the only revenue. Parking, concessions, merchandise, advertising, broadcast agreements: all of these things bring in a great deal of money.

Just their cut of the $5.2B Roger's deal is quite material. Parking is virtually all gravy, and mark-up on food and concessions is huge also.

Don't forget that at the same time, the value of the Flames has gone up markedly. Was purchased for $16M in 1980, which at 3% inflation per year would be $43.7M in 2014 dollars. According to Forbes, it is currently valued at $420M
http://www.forbes.com/teams/calgary-flames/

Gate receipts of $39M, which is less than 45% of total revenue, which is $89M. Yearly profit is $11.5M. Those numbers, I believe, are before the huge up-tick from the Roger's deal. Remember that all of this is in parallel to the value of the team having gone up 1000%.

Fuzz
Mar 31, 2014, 9:38 PM
Here is a good summary of the team value, tickets etc.

http://www.forbes.com/teams/calgary-flames/

ByeByeBaby
Mar 31, 2014, 9:42 PM
the thing about Calgary, though, is the Saddledome is the premier venue for the Stampede, which brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It's not that there wouldn't be a Stampede without it, but let's face it - the 'dome brings high profile names to Calgary during that time.

Okay, so there are 13-15K people attending a Saddledome concert, and four of those per Stampede. So that's generously 60K people who go to Saddledome concerts. Annual Stampede attendance is 1.2 million; 20 times greater - the Saddledome is a drop in the bucket. And that's assuming that the people who go to a Reba McEntire concert would otherwise have no interest in a cowboy festival. From this perspective, this argument is like saying that New Orleans needs the Superdome for Mardi Gras, or Munich needs the Allianz Arena for Oktoberfest.

But of course, the most common rumours of arena locations are not on the Stampede grounds, but in the west downtown area. Were we to get a new arena, it would diminish the Stampede as a singular event as these big name performers are performing somewhere away from the Stampede grounds. So from this perspective, this argument is more like saying that New Orleans needs Yankee Stadium for Mardi Gras.

speedog
Mar 31, 2014, 11:29 PM
http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/anderson/micro-principles/stadiums.pdf

http://www.amazon.ca/Sports-Jobs-Taxes-Roger-Noll/dp/0815761112/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396287790&sr=8-1&keywords=sports%2C+jobs+and+taxes

Show me a study that says they are an "economic benefit".

Not a study but through first-hand experience and knowledge, I can say that the Flames Foundation (which wouldn't exist if there was no arena/NHL team or stadium/CFL team) contributes a lot of money back to a wide variety of non-profit organizations - that, to me, would be an economic benefit as for many of these non-profit organizations, it's their major source of funding. Take away the Flames/Stampeders and the economic impact to these non-profit organizations would be huge.

suburbia
Mar 31, 2014, 11:56 PM
Not a study but through first-hand experience and knowledge, I can say that the Flames Foundation (which wouldn't exist if there was no arena/NHL team or stadium/CFL team) contributes a lot of money back to a wide variety of non-profit organizations - that, to me, would be an economic benefit as for many of these non-profit organizations, it's their major source of funding. Take away the Flames/Stampeders and the economic impact to these non-profit organizations would be huge.

Agree that the Flames Foundation facilitates people making donations, and they'd have to donate directly to causes if that Foundation didn't exist.

RyLucky
Apr 1, 2014, 12:08 AM
Not a study but through first-hand experience and knowledge, I can say that the Flames Foundation (which wouldn't exist if there was no arena/NHL team or stadium/CFL team) contributes a lot of money back to a wide variety of non-profit organizations - that, to me, would be an economic benefit as for many of these non-profit organizations, it's their major source of funding. Take away the Flames/Stampeders and the economic impact to these non-profit organizations would be huge.

Is one stadium enough, or do we have to buy a new one every 30 years indefinitely in order to keep the team in town?

We got an LRT around the same time as the Saddledome, and its value is higher than ever, and we don't have to blow up the old line to build a new one, and it can never move to another market. I don't see what additional value to the city a new stadium would offer that the old one doesn't. Surely, we could develop the West Village with less than $600M if that is the only benefit (We could probably do that for $60M and not even have to give up the land that the stadium would need). It would be ideal if we could keep the Flames without needing to buy them a new stadium.

Full Mountain
Apr 1, 2014, 12:16 AM
No kidding. There's a huge gap between bidding on and actual hosting the Olympics.

When Ken decides to finance a bid and wins, sure, but only then on a break even basis, Olympic stadium rarely need boxes in the number or quality that the Flames organization wants.

If they want money, they need to give up equity in the operating organization that will pay back the investment at a high hurdle rate (15%+) and within 10 years become a revenue stream to the city. Is that excessive? Sure, but so is a bunch of million/billionaires asking for a bailout because they decided they didn't want to spend their money. Make this like Enmax (i.e. positive cash flow), then you might get some support.

Full Mountain
Apr 1, 2014, 12:18 AM
Agree that the Flames Foundation facilitates people making donations, and they'd have to donate directly to causes if that Foundation didn't exist.

So the Foundation adds red tape to a donation process? Seems unnecessary.

suburbia
Apr 1, 2014, 12:28 AM
So the Foundation adds red tape to a donation process? Seems unnecessary.

Well they fund-raise via the 50/50 and direct donations. Then they assess applicants and make decisions on donations. Some of their regular donors are also the players (though the players should not be confused with the organization). I don't know the organization's part in this - it is possible the office costs might be covered. There has to be something.

Anyway - in my view, the Flames Foundation is not a reason to pay for a stadium.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 1, 2014, 12:31 AM
Calgary Flames Foundation:

Revenue
Receipted donations $104,370 (4%)

Non-receipted donations $2,273,389 (93%)

Gifts from other charities (0%)

Government funding $16,274 (1%)

All other revenue $42,820 (2%)

Total revenue: $2,436,853

Expenses
Charitable program (0%)

Management and administration $216,077 (8%)

Fundraising $370,476 (13%)

Political activities (0%)

Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $2,252,506 (79%)

Other $1 (0%)

Total expenses: $2,839,060

Full Mountain
Apr 1, 2014, 12:33 AM
Calgary Flames Foundation:

So is that ROR better than the charities that they gift money too?

ByeByeBaby
Apr 1, 2014, 1:31 AM
Not a study but through first-hand experience and knowledge, I can say that the Flames Foundation (which wouldn't exist if there was no arena/NHL team or stadium/CFL team) contributes a lot of money back to a wide variety of non-profit organizations - that, to me, would be an economic benefit as for many of these non-profit organizations, it's their major source of funding. Take away the Flames/Stampeders and the economic impact to these non-profit organizations would be huge.

No doubt it would be huge to these non-profit organizations, but Flames Foundation donations are penny-ante in the scale of an arena project; as MalcolmTucker shows, $2.5 million a year. I'd be much closer to okay for an arena if the public spending was under $2.5 million per year, rather than orders of magnitude higher.

But even then; to pick an oilpatch company at random, Suncor donated $21 million dollars to charity last year. Should taxpayers be footing the bill for their headquarters? I'm sure that the charities they donate to are equally dependent as a major source of fundraising.

The Olympics idea is BS, plain and simple. The Winter Olympics seem to pretty consistently alternate between Europe and the rest of the world, and the rest of the world alternates pretty consistently between the US, Canada and Asia. 2018 is in Korea, and 2022 will be in Europe. I would expect the US (i.e. the major IOC sponsor) to want a games, given that 2026 will be 24 years without hosting an Olympics, which means that Canada is on track for 2034 or so, maybe later if someone in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. Santiago or Christchurch) puts together something credible. And I would expect Quebec City to be the next city Canada puts forward; they've been wanting one a long time, and the politics are better for another Quebec Olympics. By the standards of the owners, who have been arguing for a new arena for years already, if an arena is built now, then it will be hopelessly out of date by they time any prospective Olympics rolls around.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 1, 2014, 1:37 AM
Quebec still hasn't had a hill certified for ski racing. Apparently none are up to snuff in the vertical department. The difficulty had organizers even theorizing about a joint bid with Vermont.

RyLucky
Apr 1, 2014, 4:29 AM
No doubt it would be huge to these non-profit organizations, but Flames Foundation donations are penny-ante in the scale of an arena project; as MalcolmTucker shows, $2.5 million a year. I'd be much closer to okay for an arena if the public spending was under $2.5 million per year, rather than orders of magnitude higher.

But even then; to pick an oilpatch company at random, Suncor donated $21 million dollars to charity last year. Should taxpayers be footing the bill for their headquarters? I'm sure that the charities they donate to are equally dependent as a major source of fundraising.

The Olympics idea is BS, plain and simple. The Winter Olympics seem to pretty consistently alternate between Europe and the rest of the world, and the rest of the world alternates pretty consistently between the US, Canada and Asia. 2018 is in Korea, and 2022 will be in Europe. I would expect the US (i.e. the major IOC sponsor) to want a games, given that 2026 will be 24 years without hosting an Olympics, which means that Canada is on track for 2034 or so, maybe later if someone in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. Santiago or Christchurch) puts together something credible. And I would expect Quebec City to be the next city Canada puts forward; they've been wanting one a long time, and the politics are better for another Quebec Olympics. By the standards of the owners, who have been arguing for a new arena for years already, if an arena is built now, then it will be hopelessly out of date by they time any prospective Olympics rolls around.

Great assessment. Except, I think Calgary actually has a chance for an Olympic bid in 20-30 years, even before Quebec. Anything could happen.

That said, decent transport to the Airport would do more for a bid than a new stadium. I'm a little offended that the Flames' owners think talk of an unlikely olympic bid can win over popular opinion so they can build a stadium with more boxes.

On another note, I looked up the net worth of a few owners...
Edwards 2.2 Billion
Libin ?
Markin 0.76 Billion
McCaig ?
Riddell 3.5 Billion
Seaman ?
They don't seem like the kind of people who should be asking the government for a hand out. Some of these guys could donate hundreds of millions of dollars every year (which, to their credit, they do) until they die and still die rich. What do you buy for the man who has everything? A (new) stadium.

para transit fellow
Apr 1, 2014, 2:03 PM
So is that ROR better than the charities that they gift money too?

improbable.

Someone is paying for the overhead ( answer queries, assessment of funding requests, verification of funds spent, etc,) except they aren't expressing the costs through the flames foundation

red_179
Apr 5, 2014, 3:16 PM
I came across this article on Calgary Puck. Talk about a multipurpose stadium for the 2026 FIFA World Cup bid and the Stamps.

(Note: The rendering in the article is apparently Farmers Field in LA, don't get too excited)

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/03/26/new-stadium-renderings-may-have-more-in-common-with-bigfoot-than-football

O-tacular
Apr 5, 2014, 6:39 PM
Great assessment. Except, I think Calgary actually has a chance for an Olympic bid in 20-30 years, even before Quebec. Anything could happen.

That said, decent transport to the Airport would do more for a bid than a new stadium. I'm a little offended that the Flames' owners think talk of an unlikely olympic bid can win over popular opinion so they can build a stadium with more boxes.

On another note, I looked up the net worth of a few owners...
Edwards 2.2 Billion
Libin ?
Markin 0.76 Billion
McCaig ?
Riddell 3.5 Billion
Seaman ?
They don't seem like the kind of people who should be asking the government for a hand out. Some of these guys could donate hundreds of millions of dollars every year (which, to their credit, they do) until they die and still die rich. What do you buy for the man who has everything? A (new) stadium.

Yep. Edwards and Riddell could split the cost and barely see a dent in their net worth. This is beyond absurd that these people want a cash strapped municipal and provincial government to subsidize a project that will only make them heaps more money per year with corporate boxes (which I hate because people who use them let's face it are not always even fans).

jsbertram
Apr 8, 2014, 10:22 PM
Yep. Edwards and Riddell could split the cost and barely see a dent in their net worth. This is beyond absurd that these people want a cash strapped municipal and provincial government to subsidize a project that will only make them heaps more money per year with corporate boxes (which I hate because people who use them let's face it are not always even fans).

You don't become a multi-Billionaire by spending you own money.

You get others to buy into your ideas & you take a slice of the proceeds.

In this case 'others' is local & Provincial and Federal politicians.

The Urbanist
Apr 9, 2014, 2:01 AM
I ran into one of major stakeholders of the Stampede grounds and he confirmed that the new arena+stadium will be located near the grounds. He wouldn't tell me where exactly, but I almost jumped up and hugged him.

count0
Apr 9, 2014, 3:15 AM
I ran into one of major stakeholders of the Stampede grounds and he confirmed that the new arena+stadium will be located near the grounds. He wouldn't tell me where exactly, but I almost jumped up and hugged him.

One of the rumored locations is up by 11th or 12th Ave north of the grounds. I'm not sure the Stampede is much of a decision maker here though.

O-tacular
Apr 9, 2014, 3:17 AM
I ran into one of major stakeholders of the Stampede grounds and he confirmed that the new arena+stadium will be located near the grounds. He wouldn't tell me where exactly, but I almost jumped up and hugged him.

Very interesting and welcome news. Ultimately if they built it north of the Stampede I think it would be better than the west end. The only real thing is it will likely rely on a future SELRT. This combined with quarry park might actually give more of an argument to get the green line done sooner. That is the only form of 'subsidy' I would support for the new stadium.

MasterG
Apr 9, 2014, 3:51 AM
Very interesting and welcome news. Ultimately if they built it north of the Stampede I think it would be better than the west end. The only real thing is it will likely rely on a future SELRT. This combined with quarry park might actually give more of an argument to get the green line done sooner. That is the only form of 'subsidy' I would support for the new stadium.

Most of the area north of the Park is the same distance to the LRT as the current stadium. Now the walk to the City Hall Station is manageable so both lines are reasonable. Plus add some crowds to the ped-oriented retail scene of future Vic Park and East Village scenes. Probably can't ask for much better of a location, given the requirements that such a large project.

The SELRT certainly wouldn't hurt, but isn't a prerequisite. Hopefully this project will be add another good reason the SE LRT's business case. More in the timeframe however, this will be a good test of the Green Line BRT system.

H.E.Pennypacker
Apr 9, 2014, 2:14 PM
I ran into one of major stakeholders of the Stampede grounds and he confirmed that the new arena+stadium will be located near the grounds. He wouldn't tell me where exactly, but I almost jumped up and hugged him.

Thanks for sharing, exciting news!

One of the rumored locations is up by 11th or 12th Ave north of the grounds. I'm not sure the Stampede is much of a decision maker here though.

Yeah I think the corner of 11th Ave and 4th St SE would be the location here... Makes sense with the EV going up quickly - also it would be walkable from the Vic Park station still, the City Hall station, and possibly from the Green Line too once it's built

Spring2008
Apr 9, 2014, 2:48 PM
I ran into one of major stakeholders of the Stampede grounds and he confirmed that the new arena+stadium will be located near the grounds. He wouldn't tell me where exactly, but I almost jumped up and hugged him.

This would have to be the Railtown lands. Not sure this confirms anything yet, so we shall see.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 9, 2014, 3:37 PM
^ What about the Elbow river casino site that had the crazy super tall visioning a few years back? There is enough land to leverage a little 'district'.

bt04ku
Apr 9, 2014, 3:48 PM
I ran into one of major stakeholders of the Stampede grounds and he confirmed that the new arena+stadium will be located near the grounds. He wouldn't tell me where exactly, but I almost jumped up and hugged him.

Oh this is fantastic news. Everything about a Vic Park arena is better than the West Village. Better for transit users, better for drivers, better for pedestrians, better for business, better for the Stampede, it's just better. So if this turns out to be bad information, it will break my heart.

I would have to think it is that 4th St/11th Ave corner simply because it's big enough and it was the land rumoured to be part of the land swap a while back. Plus it has to be one of the less desirable plots in the area.

While I'm against money going to arenas and stadiums I'm definitely not against the city giving an empty piece of land along the rail tracks in a developing neighborhood to people who want to build one.

artvandelay
Apr 9, 2014, 3:49 PM
I'd still be surprised if it's anywhere near the Stampede grounds.

CorporateWhore
Apr 9, 2014, 3:58 PM
I just hope the Stampede itself isn't a stakeholder. Because you know what that means.

The Fisher Account
Apr 9, 2014, 4:04 PM
Yeah I call BS on this one.

My bet is still the West Village

bt04ku
Apr 9, 2014, 4:09 PM
I just hope the Stampede itself isn't a stakeholder. Because you know what that means.

I can't see the Stampede being any kind of stakeholder this time around.

IIRC the rumours for the West Village coincided with rumblings that the Flames wanted as little to do with the CS as possible because of strained relations (especially regarding parking). So if the Flames were to go with a Vic Park location, then I think it would be a safe bet to assume that they'd have as distant a relationship as possible with the Stampede.

tomthumb2
Apr 9, 2014, 4:29 PM
I can't see the Stampede being any kind of stakeholder this time around.

IIRC the rumours for the West Village coincided with rumblings that the Flames wanted as little to do with the CS as possible because of strained relations (especially regarding parking). So if the Flames were to go with a Vic Park location, then I think it would be a safe bet to assume that they'd have as distant a relationship as possible with the Stampede.

This makes more sense to me. Why on earth would the flames want anything to do with the Stampede when they can own it all themselves. One thing for sure, the Flames are very good at keeping every aspect about this extremely secretive.

freeweed
Apr 9, 2014, 5:12 PM
One thing for sure, the Flames are very good at keeping every aspect about this extremely secretive.

Given this day and age, and all the various parties involved, that is one of the bigger understatements of year. ;) Which is why I take every piece of rumour on this issue with a HUGE grain of salt.

I'm personally putting even odds on us doing an Olympics bid in the very near future. For a games possibly sooner than most people think. And I bet we'd win. There's a lot of pro-Canada in the Olympic realm right now, it's the perfect time to strike. And it explains just why it's taking so bloody long to figure out Saddledome/McMahon replacements. I think there's a lot more going on here than just "the Flames", as some focus on.

Northski
Apr 9, 2014, 5:16 PM
If the Flames build a new arena there are really not going to want to complete with the saddledome for concerts. If they locate on the stampede grounds they have a better chance of getting the saddledome torn down or a non-compete agreement.

Chadillaccc
Apr 9, 2014, 5:25 PM
The great part about that is, the Saddledome is shit for hosting concerts, so as long as the new stadium has even half-decent acoustics, there won't be any competition... other than maybe the price.

bt04ku
Apr 9, 2014, 5:30 PM
Given this day and age, and all the various parties involved, that is one of the bigger understatements of year. ;) Which is why I take every piece of rumour on this issue with a HUGE grain of salt.

I'm personally putting even odds on us doing an Olympics bid in the very near future. For a games possibly sooner than most people think. And I bet we'd win. There's a lot of pro-Canada in the Olympic realm right now, it's the perfect time to strike. And it explains just why it's taking so bloody long to figure out Saddledome/McMahon replacements. I think there's a lot more going on here than just "the Flames", as some focus on.
I've always attributed the secrecy and delays because the Flames owners want to upstage the Oilers for the arena; see what they come up with, then build a better one. Given that the arena will be the 'jewel' and drive the success of the business, any talk of a McMahon replacement would get put on the backburner.



And just because I always love Olympic speculation even though I just don't believe it, that would definitely change the whole dynamic of funding and long term planning significantly. 2026 would be the time to go for it, even if it is only 16 years after Vancouver. Asia and Europe get the next two (or Asia-Asia I guess if Almaty can pull it off, but I think it's Oslo's to lose) which opens the door for another North American bid. Quebec City seems dead in the water given the problems with a ski hill so it really depends on what the US plans on doing, whether it be to make a bid for the Winter games or make a push for the 2024/2028 Summer games.

red_179
Apr 9, 2014, 6:23 PM
Yeah I call BS on this one.

My bet is still the West Village

My money is still on West Village as well.

Surrealplaces
Apr 9, 2014, 6:39 PM
I ran into one of major stakeholders of the Stampede grounds and he confirmed that the new arena+stadium will be located near the grounds. He wouldn't tell me where exactly, but I almost jumped up and hugged him.

That would be great. My first own first choice would be somewhere near the Stampede grounds.

Chadillaccc
Apr 9, 2014, 6:42 PM
Mine as well. That block along the tracks would be PERFECT. A great way to connect Inglewood and Ramsay into the inner city. Hopefully this is the case, as it may push forward the development of the Orchard Towers, and possibly the Club Sport and Stampede Hotel. Another effect of this may lead to having the future SE LRT burried under 12th and the Elbow River, with a station near the stadium, and coming above ground on 9th Ave in Inglewood.

freeweed
Apr 9, 2014, 7:29 PM
I've always attributed the secrecy and delays because the Flames owners want to upstage the Oilers for the arena; see what they come up with, then build a better one. Given that the arena will be the 'jewel' and drive the success of the business, any talk of a McMahon replacement would get put on the backburner.

With all due respect to our Edmontonian friends on SSP and elsewhere... I really don't think the Flames are worried about competing with what they're doing up there. And there just isn't the same competition between the 2 cities in recent years, for a variety of reasons.


And just because I always love Olympic speculation even though I just don't believe it, that would definitely change the whole dynamic of funding and long term planning significantly. 2026 would be the time to go for it, even if it is only 16 years after Vancouver. Asia and Europe get the next two (or Asia-Asia I guess if Almaty can pull it off, but I think it's Oslo's to lose) which opens the door for another North American bid. Quebec City seems dead in the water given the problems with a ski hill so it really depends on what the US plans on doing, whether it be to make a bid for the Winter games or make a push for the 2024/2028 Summer games.

My bet's on the US going for the summer games next. They're far more prestigious for an alpha country. So presuming Americas winter games.. I think Calgary has one hell of a good chance. It's been talked about quietly for a while now, and a few new facilities is all we really need. 1988 still rings strongly in the memories of a lot of people around the sports world.

VIce
Apr 9, 2014, 10:52 PM
With all due respect to our Edmontonian friends on SSP and elsewhere... I really don't think the Flames are worried about competing with what they're doing up there. And there just isn't the same competition between the 2 cities in recent years, for a variety of reasons.




My bet's on the US going for the summer games next. They're far more prestigious for an alpha country. So presuming Americas winter games.. I think Calgary has one hell of a good chance. It's been talked about quietly for a while now, and a few new facilities is all we really need. 1988 still rings strongly in the memories of a lot of people around the sports world.
So what's really needed? Major upgrades to ski jumping and long-track facilities, possibly a new bobsled run. But other than that? A new stadium/arena complex gives you an opening/closing ceremonies venue and a primary ice surface; the Saddledome gives one of the most fully-featured secondary ice surfaces at an Olympics. Then its just temporary facilities for media and fans everywhere else. COP could certainly accommodate freestyle and snowboarding, even though neither were in the '88 program.

Chadillaccc
Apr 9, 2014, 10:55 PM
We would also need a new Olympic Village constructed.

It would be my hope that the village would be constructed on the remaining surface lots along the tracks, including an extremely long park decking over the tracks. Perhaps combined with a High Speed Rail/C-train Transit hub station.

Full Mountain
Apr 9, 2014, 10:59 PM
So what's really needed? Major upgrades to ski jumping and long-track facilities, possibly a new bobsled run. But other than that? A new stadium/arena complex gives you an opening/closing ceremonies venue and a primary ice surface; the Saddledome gives one of the most fully-featured secondary ice surfaces at an Olympics. Then its just temporary facilities for media and fans everywhere else. COP could certainly accommodate freestyle and snowboarding, even though neither were in the '88 program.

We would also need a new Olympic Village constructed.

It would be my hope that the village would be constructed on the remaining surface lots along the tracks, including an extremely long park decking over the tracks. Perhaps combined with a High Speed Rail/C-train Transit hub station.

You would need a ($$$$) train from Calgary to the mountain venues, just about guaranteed that any bid without it would fail.

Chadillaccc
Apr 9, 2014, 11:10 PM
Totally :) We could do an HSR from Edmonton to Calgary (with stops at both airports and Red Deer) and Calgary to Banff (with a stop in Canmore) or even to Lake Louise... as one complete contiguous line.


It would be nice to connect the capital to the mountains like that.

McMurph
Apr 10, 2014, 12:44 AM
You would need a ($$$$) train from Calgary to the mountain venues, just about guaranteed that any bid without it would fail.

While I'd love to have a proper passenger train to the mountains, I find it hard to believe that it would be a requirement for a successful bid. Vancouver didn't have a particularly effective rail connection and their road to Whistler is far worse than our road to the Rockies. Buses might not be sexy but they can move a hell of a lot of people, especially on our roads. And HSR westwards ain't going happen. Ever.

As for the arena / stadium, I like the idea of victoria park over the west end. I was down that way today and was trying to imagine how it would work. Could both fit in the railtown lands between 4th street and the river, or would the stadium have to go by the tracks and the arena sit on an adjoining parcel to the south? Can anyone sketch up the potential footprints?

bt04ku
Apr 10, 2014, 6:38 AM
With all due respect to our Edmontonian friends on SSP and elsewhere... I really don't think the Flames are worried about competing with what they're doing up there. And there just isn't the same competition between the 2 cities in recent years, for a variety of reasons.



Maybe not the cities, but these are pro sports organizations competing against each other who want to be as best off the ice as on the ice. I have to think it's played a part. Some big egos with a lot of money.

bt04ku
Apr 10, 2014, 6:41 AM
Totally :) We could do an HSR from Edmonton to Calgary (with stops at both airports and Red Deer) and Calgary to Banff (with a stop in Canmore) or even to Lake Louise... as one complete contiguous line.


It would be nice to connect the capital to the mountains like that.

The Calgary-Edmonton connection could be part of their Commonwealth Games bid, Calgary-Lake Louise would be our Olympic Bid.

Combine all that with a 2026 FIFA World Cup bid and we've got ourselves a federal spending spree like you've never seen before.

Bigtime
Apr 10, 2014, 1:09 PM
Count me in as another vote for putting the new arena on a portion of the Remington Railtown lands in East Beltline. Remington seems to take his sweet time building anything on his property (see Meredith block and its glacial progress) so this would be a great way to take a chunk of that land off his hands and get things built on it. At the same time East Village is building up, East Beltline keeps chugging along and Stampede can get a piece of the action with their 4th street project (Stampede Trail) finally moving ahead just south of the site.

Riise
Apr 10, 2014, 1:35 PM
Oh this is fantastic news. Everything about a Vic Park arena is better than the West Village. Better for transit users...

Wouldn't an arena in the West Village basically be on the doorsteps of Sunalata Station?


I'm personally putting even odds on us doing an Olympics bid in the very near future. For a games possibly sooner than most people think. And I bet we'd win. There's a lot of pro-Canada in the Olympic realm right now, it's the perfect time to strike.

Does this include the politics/corruption that unfortunately clouds international sports? Canada deffo has great momentum with regards to the Olympics but these bodies are so self-serving/hireable.


With all due respect to our Edmontonian friends on SSP and elsewhere... I really don't think the Flames are worried about competing with what they're doing up there.

While they probably wouldn't mind one-upping them, I think the focus will be on winning over customers.


We would also need a new Olympic Village constructed.

It would be my hope that the village would be constructed on the remaining surface lots along the tracks, including an extremely long park decking over the tracks. Perhaps combined with a High Speed Rail/C-train Transit hub station.

What about Westbrook? It could really generate some action on a site that is both well-connected and easy to secure.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 10, 2014, 1:37 PM
What about the block for the mall, what is it First? Would provide a nice flow of people even if the engineering would push the cost up.

Chadillaccc
Apr 10, 2014, 2:55 PM
What about Westbrook? It could really generate some action on a site that is both well-connected and easy to secure.

I don't understand... why would we put the village kilometers away from any of the sport venues with only one transit connection to the major areas of the city, when we have several kilometers worth of developable land on both sides of the tracks, in the centre of downtown, right next to either of the proposed stadium sites.

Riise
Apr 10, 2014, 3:45 PM
I don't understand... why would we put the village kilometers away from any of the sport venues with only one transit connection to the major areas of the city, when we have several kilometers worth of developable land on both sides of the tracks, in the centre of downtown, right next to either of the proposed stadium sites.

In terms of proximity to venues, Westbrook will not be directly next to a venue but there would be numerous venues spread across the region so I don't see not being next to one venue as that big of a disadvantage. Additionally, the area surrounding Westbrook does not suffer from nearly as much congestion as the area around Railtown. It would most likely be much easier to move coach loads of athletes in and out of a village in Westbrook than Railtown during peak-periods.

While some athletes will take transit, I think the future residents are the ones that will most benefit from the site being a TOD. Consequently, only being served by the Blue Line isn't much of an issue.

In terms of development, we're starting to fill out Central Calgary at a decent pace. While I personally see the benefits of concentrating development in one area, an Athletes' Village does provide an excellent opportunity to ignite development in area that is struggling to attract regeneration. A good portion of Westbrook could be developed in one go and benefit from being a comprehensive state led and built development; it could be a great project to solicit additional buy-in into the TOD concept.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 10, 2014, 3:54 PM
Depending on the number of hotels that are finished likely have to do a media village as well. Not sure if BMO is big enough to act as the media centre. I would think so but who knows.

Spring2008
Apr 10, 2014, 3:58 PM
In terms of development, we're starting to fill out Central Calgary at a decent pace. While I personally see the benefits of concentrating development in one area, an Athletes' Village does provide an excellent opportunity to ignite development in area that is struggling to attract regeneration. A good portion of Westbrook could be developed in one go and benefit from being a comprehensive state led and built development; it could be a great project to solicit additional buy-in into the TOD concept.

Same could be said about the West Village (Sunalta)area which is closer to the core.

freeweed
Apr 10, 2014, 4:40 PM
So what's really needed? Major upgrades to ski jumping and long-track facilities, possibly a new bobsled run. But other than that? A new stadium/arena complex gives you an opening/closing ceremonies venue and a primary ice surface; the Saddledome gives one of the most fully-featured secondary ice surfaces at an Olympics. Then its just temporary facilities for media and fans everywhere else. COP could certainly accommodate freestyle and snowboarding, even though neither were in the '88 program.

Basically you've covered it. New stadium/arena are the big ticket items, and both are months if not weeks away from announcements. 5-8 years before completion, depending on a whole host of factors. Lines up pretty nicely with an aggressive Oly bid.

Louise and Nakiska give us plenty of space for any and all alpine events, regardless of what new things get added to the dance card. Especially because half of this is pioneered/competed at Louise already.

freeweed
Apr 10, 2014, 4:40 PM
You would need a ($$$$) train from Calgary to the mountain venues, just about guaranteed that any bid without it would fail.

Vancouver has a train between the city and Whistler?

Full Mountain
Apr 10, 2014, 5:06 PM
While I'd love to have a proper passenger train to the mountains, I find it hard to believe that it would be a requirement for a successful bid. Vancouver didn't have a particularly effective rail connection and their road to Whistler is far worse than our road to the Rockies. Buses might not be sexy but they can move a hell of a lot of people, especially on our roads. And HSR westwards ain't going happen. Ever.

As for the arena / stadium, I like the idea of victoria park over the west end. I was down that way today and was trying to imagine how it would work. Could both fit in the railtown lands between 4th street and the river, or would the stadium have to go by the tracks and the arena sit on an adjoining parcel to the south? Can anyone sketch up the potential footprints?

You have to remember the Olympics are a game of one-up-manship, Sochi had a train all future bids will now need trains that are faster and better. People aren't going to sit on a bus for 1-2hrs to get to the mountains (sure it was great in '88, attention spans are far shorter now). People aren't going to want to commit to a full day in the mountains, get it down to a 30 min train trip people can go see a alpine event in the morning and a speed skating or hockey event in the afternoon and 1.5hr bus ride doesn't allow that in the same way.

Vancouver has a train between the city and Whistler?

No but Sochi did, see above re: one-up-manship