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

MalcolmTucker
Mar 13, 2015, 3:24 PM
How so?

The bulk of the Edmonton's contribution will be paid for through a ticket tax on events in the new arena and through a CRL on the area around the new arena. This is a tax-base that didn't exist prior to the arena deal.

In fact, since the announcement of the new arena there has been 2.5b worth of new development slated for the area around the arena and more to come. This development is happening because of the new arena. It would not have occurred without it. We know this because the land the arena is built on was parking lots for decades and the development only chose to locate in the district after the arena was confirmed and knowing full well that they would have to pay extra through the CRL to be there. At the end of the day 'taxpayers' aren't paying for Edmonton's arena, rather users and specific taxpayers who by and large chose to be there are the ones paying.


This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how CRL / Tax Increment Financing works. Unless the addition to the capital stock that was induced was going to be outside of the City of Edmonton boundaries, it is solely a book keeping exercise to segregate a portion of the city wide mill rate to pay off a loan and a transfer of education property tax revenue from across the entire province to the CRL.

And the city deciding to relocate offices to the arena district doesn't really count :rolleyes:

WaitWhat?
Mar 13, 2015, 5:03 PM
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how CRL / Tax Increment Financing works. Unless the addition to the capital stock that was induced was going to be outside of the City of Edmonton boundaries, it is solely a book keeping exercise to segregate a portion of the city wide mill rate to pay off a loan and a transfer of education property tax revenue from across the entire province to the CRL.

And the city deciding to relocate offices to the arena district doesn't really count :rolleyes:

I don't want to derail this thread but isn't this what we're doing in the East Village? Is this also merely a book keeping exercise? I'm not criticizing it, I'm just legitimately interested. Feel free to reply in the East Village thread if you want.

fusili
Mar 13, 2015, 6:23 PM
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how CRL / Tax Increment Financing works. Unless the addition to the capital stock that was induced was going to be outside of the City of Edmonton boundaries, it is solely a book keeping exercise to segregate a portion of the city wide mill rate to pay off a loan and a transfer of education property tax revenue from across the entire province to the CRL.

And the city deciding to relocate offices to the arena district doesn't really count :rolleyes:

Like how we located the Bow in the East Village? ;)

MalcolmTucker
Mar 13, 2015, 6:37 PM
I don't want to derail this thread but isn't this what we're doing in the East Village? Is this also merely a book keeping exercise? I'm not criticizing it, I'm just legitimately interested. Feel free to reply in the East Village thread if you want.

Like how we located the Bow in the East Village? ;)

Yup. There is no difference besides the provincial education property tax increment being transferred to the city between a CRL/TIF between a TIF paid off loan for infrastructure improvements in an area and a property tax general revenue paid off loan.

In place with lots of small contiguous cities there is more of a case to be made for using TIFs to shape development patterns. Like in Chicago to some extent:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Map_of_Cook_County_Illinois_showing_townships.png
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Cook_County_Illinois_showing_townships.png

If building fancier street lights and nicer sidewalks induces a development that would have been built in another city/town/township to be built in your town instead, after you pay off the TIF loan, you hope the extra development will over time generate more tax revenue than the cost of providing tax supported services to the TIF district until the loan was paid off, and the tax supported services after.

But yes! It is a great rhetorical device because it is confusing!

Spring2008
Mar 13, 2015, 6:48 PM
I don't want to derail this thread but isn't this what we're doing in the East Village? Is this also merely a book keeping exercise? I'm not criticizing it, I'm just legitimately interested. Feel free to reply in the East Village thread if you want.

One city is paying 75% of the cost of a new arena, while a billionaire retains all sources of revenue possible.

CMLC money went to massive remediation and brand new public realm improvements for an entire district that will house 11,000 residents and millions of sf of retail and cultural space, redeveloped island, riverwalk etc.

If the flames ownership come up with a similar scheme, asking for say $750M for an arena and stadium, nobody here would be ok with it.

WaitWhat?
Mar 13, 2015, 8:31 PM
One city is paying 75% of the cost of a new arena, while a billionaire retains all sources of revenue possible.

CMLC money went to massive remediation and brand new public realm improvements for an entire district that will house 11,000 residents and millions of sf of retail and cultural space, redeveloped island, riverwalk etc.

If the flames ownership come up with a similar scheme, asking for say $750M for an arena and stadium, nobody here would be ok with it.

My question was not meant as a criticism of the East Village or its funding mechanism. It was more a question as to how CRLs work. Also, it's good to know there is a single point of contact to get the opinion of everyone here.

Ramsayfarian
Mar 14, 2015, 3:04 PM
How so?

The bulk of the Edmonton's contribution will be paid for through a ticket tax on events in the new arena and through a CRL on the area around the new arena. This is a tax-base that didn't exist prior to the arena deal.

In fact, since the announcement of the new arena there has been 2.5b worth of new development slated for the area around the arena and more to come. This development is happening because of the new arena. It would not have occurred without it. We know this because the land the arena is built on was parking lots for decades and the development only chose to locate in the district after the arena was confirmed and knowing full well that they would have to pay extra through the CRL to be there. At the end of the day 'taxpayers' aren't paying for Edmonton's arena, rather users and specific taxpayers who by and large chose to be there are the ones paying.

But could they have gotten a better deal? Doubtful. The fact that the arena deal in Edmonton took ~4 years of intense haggling back and forth, veiled threats of moving the team, councilors dead-set against any public money being involved along with massive public opposition basically undermines any argument that Edmonton could have gotten a significantly better deal.

At the end of the day, Edmonton faced a choice: Make the deal and reap the rewards of the revitalization of a huge dead zone in their core including millions in new tax revenue or walk away from it all. Edmonton chose wisely IMO.


If the arena complex was 100% user funded via the ticket tax I would say good on them, but alas it isn't. IIRC the ticket tax only covers 25% of the estimated cost, with the rest coming from the taxpayer. Hopefully they will be able to capitalize on the downturn and the build will be cheaper but there's a good chance they will blow the budget.

As far as the resulting development around the arena go, that's great to see those empty lots get swallowed up but it still doesn't justify this deal. There's been more than one study that shows tax funded sport infrastructure is a sucker's bet.

Only time will tell, and as I have a soft spot for the Chuk, I hope I will be proven wrong.

Socguy
Mar 14, 2015, 3:54 PM
Curious. Who is doing the adjacent development(s) (and thus will be gaining the profits)? The City, or is it the owner of the Oilers and/or someone related? Kind of like a Bronconier, no?

It's irrelevant who's gaining the profits from the development. No development goes ahead if it's not profitable. What's relevant for the city (and it's taxpayers) is how much new property tax is obtained from those developments.

But to more directly answer your question, Katz is building several office and mixed use towers next to the arena.

Socguy
Mar 14, 2015, 4:02 PM
The 'ask' is from King - well, there has been that group that's been trying to get a field house built in Calgary that would've most likely had public monies going towards it. If the Flames build a spectacular field house and offer it up to the city as a part of a deal and maybe throw in some road re-alignments (if in the west side), would the city take a serious sniff. If it's north of Stampede ground (rail town?), if the deal offered is a field house and relocation of affected bus barns, again would the city consider it?

IMHO the ideal location for the Flames to build anything like this would be on or adjacent to the Stampede grounds. Anywhere else blocks other development. If the Flames are willing to foot the bill, then I do think the city should at least look at the thing. But, If the ask is public money in some form, then red flags should be raised.

Socguy
Mar 14, 2015, 4:35 PM
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how CRL / Tax Increment Financing works. Unless the addition to the capital stock that was induced was going to be outside of the City of Edmonton boundaries, it is solely a book keeping exercise to segregate a portion of the city wide mill rate to pay off a loan and a transfer of education property tax revenue from across the entire province to the CRL.

Your argument presupposes that this development would have occurred anyway, however, there is no evidence that it would have. Furthermore, it's no paper shuffle when development in one location pays more than in another location.

Finally, the development is helping to hold Edmonton business in the downtown core instead of relocating to the suburbs or even outside the city.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1716568/enbridge-consolidating-at-two-downtown-edmonton-office-towers/

Socguy
Mar 14, 2015, 4:43 PM
If the arena complex was 100% user funded via the ticket tax I would say good on them, but alas it isn't. IIRC the ticket tax only covers 25% of the estimated cost, with the rest coming from the taxpayer. Hopefully they will be able to capitalize on the downturn and the build will be cheaper but there's a good chance they will blow the budget.

As far as the resulting development around the arena go, that's great to see those empty lots get swallowed up but it still doesn't justify this deal. There's been more than one study that shows tax funded sport infrastructure is a sucker's bet.

Only time will tell, and as I have a soft spot for the Chuk, I hope I will be proven wrong.

The arena has a fixed price guaranteed by the contractor. Any shortfalls are covered by the contractor. Currently it's on time and on budget. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/arena-construction-on-time-and-on-budget-says-city-report-1.2770637

Yes, there has been several studies that show sport infrastructure can be a suckers bet, but there are also examples of where it works. That's why one needs to consider the situation around each proposal. It's why I believe that Edmonton made the right move, but why Calgary needs to be very cautious. ...Different cities in different situations.

Ramsayfarian
Mar 14, 2015, 8:33 PM
The arena has a fixed price guaranteed by the contractor. Any shortfalls are covered by the contractor. Currently it's on time and on budget. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/arena-construction-on-time-and-on-budget-says-city-report-1.2770637

Yes, there has been several studies that show sport infrastructure can be a suckers bet, but there are also examples of where it works. That's why one needs to consider the situation around each proposal. It's why I believe that Edmonton made the right move, but why Calgary needs to be very cautious. ...Different cities in different situations.

Do you have any examples of where it works? This page has numerous links to studies that back my view, albeit, from a US perspective.

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-subsidizing-sports-stadiums

" A July 2007 article from Reason Public Policy Institute researchers Samuel Staley and Leonard Gilroy notes, "More than 20 years of academic research has failed to find a significant relationship between an investment in a sports stadium and significant job or income growth.""

suburbia
Mar 14, 2015, 8:40 PM
It's irrelevant who's gaining the profits from the development. No development goes ahead if it's not profitable. What's relevant for the city (and it's taxpayers) is how much new property tax is obtained from those developments.

But to more directly answer your question, Katz is building several office and mixed use towers next to the arena.

Wow! So he and his business circle have really bent all you Edmontonians over nicely.

Tropics
Mar 15, 2015, 9:40 PM
If the arena complex was 100% user funded via the ticket tax I would say good on them, but alas it isn't. IIRC the ticket tax only covers 25% of the estimated cost, with the rest coming from the taxpayer.

Not really though. Any adjacent lands to the arena are going to see dramatic increases in land value and that is going to cause a spike to their property taxes and that will indirectly cover some of the costs. Increased revenue from things like restaurants and pubs will add large amounts of money to federal tax revenue by way of both GST and business and income taxes, of which some will likely get trickled back to the city of Edmonton for future projects. The former arena was in a simply terrible area with limited access to eat and drink before or after the game. 104th Ave in Edmonton is set to become their version of the "Red Mile" and it will bring in a ton of tax revenue that was not being generated prior to this new arena.

The arena is not only a place for the Oilers to play hockey. Edmonton is using it as a stimulus for that area of their core, and that city greatly need stimulus in their whole core because it is a freaking wasteland compared to Calgary. How much it will help drive future economic growth in the area is as yet unknown and we will only really be able to look back 20-30 years from now to see how well things worked out for the City of Edmonton, but I am guessing they are going to do pretty well with it in the long run and when "all" of the benefits and paybacks to the city are taken into account they will not be looking at a taxpayer loss.

These places can be pretty nice to have and a really nice arena can stimulate a lot of tourism growth as well. There are more then a few people from Calgary, Red Deer, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, ect... that are going to make the trek up to Edmonton to see Madonna or Shania Twain. They are going to spend money on hotels and eating out and the City of Edmonton is going to see economic value from those events, and Calgary will lose any economic benefits we could have had by not being able to attract those events and that tourism because we don't have a arena that can properly hold such events.

Nenshi again shows his flippant short sightedness when he claims “I don’t think we should use tax money to bring in Madonna.”, but the real question is should we be investing and using tax money on projects that can help stimulate the economic growth of the city? Should we spend tax money on things that can bring in thousands of visitors to the city who fill Calgary hotel rooms and Calgary restaurants and who might go out and shop in Calgary retail establishments while they are here? This is something that Nenshi seems to have a real hard time grasping, it is this same thing that makes him so against a new convention center, he simply cannot see the bigger economic picture in things like this, at all, he is completely clueless and cannot see the forest through the trees in the slightest in regards to these types of things.

This city's own economy is like a runaway freight train and it is driving economic growth and development "despite" Nenshi and the attitudes of many people who refuse, or cannot see the long term economic value in large tax supported projects like a Arena or a Convention Center. A proper large scale convention center in the City of Calgary would bring huge economical benefits to the city, it would drive new downtown/core hotel development, it would bring huge numbers of people into the city to spend taxable money on things like food, drinks, taxis, retail shopping, airfares, ect...

The actual economic benefits are huge and far reaching with things like that but when people crunch the numbers they rarely look that far and the actual positive economic realities are often overlooked. Right now we are a growing city with a growing economy "despite" the fact that we have people with very little vision in power. What this city could actually do, the boom we would "actually" be in right now if some people who had the ability to see the actual value in certain large scale projects? It would make the current economic activity in this city pale in comparison.

ATM Calgary has a large opportunity to really build on our forward progress, but we are doing nothing, and eventually we are going to end up paying more later to do things that should have been done sooner, and we are going to lose "ALL" of the economic and development benefits those things that "could" have been done earlier would have brought through all those years of procrastination.

Eventually we are going to "have" to build a new arena. 10 years from now, 20? Eventually it will be less of a choice and it will have to get built. Eventually we are going to need to build a new proper Convention Center, we already needed a new one years ago and we lose (and have lost) a huge number of conventions each year to other cities because we cannot properly hold them. 10 years from now? 20? Eventually one has to get built or Calgary is going to be the only major city in Canada that willfully choses not to have an actual functional convention center at all.

We can wait on these things we actually need now, we will simply continue to lose any and all of the economic benefits and growth that those would bring to this city in the mean time... Eventually it becomes a terrible decision to wait any longer, and with the convention center that time came and went years ago now already. With the arena that time clearly seems to be fast approaching or is already here because we are losing economically beneficial events "right now" because of our lack of a proper modern arena that can handle the current requirements of large high profile concert events.

Doug
Mar 15, 2015, 10:18 PM
So... a month and a half with no new news??? I'm dying here, somebody throw me a bone. Anything please...

Here's my conspiracy theory: CP is advertising during Flames games. Why in the hell does CP need to advertise? Because they are working with the Flames to build the arena on/over CP land, right? Ergo, Railtown is the obvious location.

Remington owns the Rail Town land, not CP. Not sure if enough space exists between 9th and 10 the to build over tracks in west dt.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 16, 2015, 3:23 AM
It's irrelevant who's gaining the profits from the development. No development goes ahead if it's not profitable. What's relevant for the city (and it's taxpayers) is how much new property tax is obtained from those developments.

But to more directly answer your question, Katz is building several office and mixed use towers next to the arena.

Property taxes don't work like that, on the revenue neutral market assessment model we have in Alberta. To collect additional taxes due to a development, you have to raise taxes, and the people are against this, because it is just a tiny bit hard to explain how property taxes actually work in 10 seconds. When the CRL ends, everyone else's taxes in Edmonton will go down, and revenue stays the same, unless the city increases property taxes in proportion of the additional capital stock now contributing to general revenues.

lubicon
Mar 16, 2015, 6:17 PM
Do you have any examples of where it works? This page has numerous links to studies that back my view, albeit, from a US perspective.

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-subsidizing-sports-stadiums

" A July 2007 article from Reason Public Policy Institute researchers Samuel Staley and Leonard Gilroy notes, "More than 20 years of academic research has failed to find a significant relationship between an investment in a sports stadium and significant job or income growth.""

I recall listening to an interview a few years ago about this topic. The interviewee was an economist who studies these things for a living and he said the one in Columbus, Ohio could be considered successful. Sorry, I cannot back that up with a link to a study or anything however.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 16, 2015, 6:23 PM
U of A's specialist sports economist has studied this.

https://scholar.google.ca/citations?hl=en&user=_tU55R0AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate


New Sports Facilities and Residential Housing Markets, 2014
The impact of professional sports facilities on housing values: Evidence from census block group data, 2012
Do New Sports Facilities Revitalize Urban Neighborhoods? Evidence from Residential Mortgage Applications, 2012

Ramsayfarian
Mar 16, 2015, 6:31 PM
I recall listening to an interview a few years ago about this topic. The interviewee was an economist who studies these things for a living and he said the one in Columbus, Ohio could be considered successful. Sorry, I cannot back that up with a link to a study or anything however.

if he was referring to the Blue Jackets arena, it looks like things have changed in the past couple of years.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/category/nhl/columbus-blue-jackets/

Haven't clicked on all these links, but there seems to be a common theme:
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Columbus+ohio+taxpayer+funded+arena&spell=1

esquire
Mar 16, 2015, 6:35 PM
if he was referring to the Blue Jackets arena, it looks like things have changed in the past couple of years.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/category/nhl/columbus-blue-jackets/

Haven't clicked on all these links, but there seems to be a common theme:
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Columbus+ohio+taxpayer+funded+arena&spell=1

You guyyyys! Edmonton will be different. Because of reasons.

(mumble mumble... something about Stantec and CRLs... mumble mumble...)

suburbia
Mar 16, 2015, 7:37 PM
Property taxes don't work like that, on the revenue neutral market assessment model we have in Alberta. To collect additional taxes due to a development, you have to raise taxes, and the people are against this, because it is just a tiny bit hard to explain how property taxes actually work in 10 seconds. When the CRL ends, everyone else's taxes in Edmonton will go down, and revenue stays the same, unless the city increases property taxes in proportion of the additional capital stock now contributing to general revenues.

It does raise the question of why municipal taxes are like that. Someone pays $105 in year one. In year two it is $100 with taxes neutral. In year two it is $107, but instead of it being articulated as less than a 2% increase, it is reported as being 7% up from the revenue neutral number. Everyone is then up in arms, but for no reason.

Certainly a comment for the "municipal politics" section, but mentioned here given the reality that new development does not increase municipal coffers in a revenue neutral system.

You guyyyys! Edmonton will be different. Because of reasons.
(mumble mumble... something about Stantec and CRLs... mumble mumble...)

:haha:

Ramsayfarian
Mar 16, 2015, 9:15 PM
U of A's specialist sports economist has studied this.

https://scholar.google.ca/citations?hl=en&user=_tU55R0AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate


New Sports Facilities and Residential Housing Markets, 2014
The impact of professional sports facilities on housing values: Evidence from census block group data, 2012
Do New Sports Facilities Revitalize Urban Neighborhoods? Evidence from Residential Mortgage Applications, 2012


I skimmed the last one of the list and read the conclusion. Sounds like he really didn't find much a direct impact with regards to mortgages.

" Our results cast some doubt on the ability of a new professional sports facility to spur urban redevelopment, at least as reflected in residential mortgage applications. However, an analysis of other indicators of urban redevelopment, notably in the form of new businesses openings or commercial real estate prices, might paint a different picture."

craner
Mar 17, 2015, 3:53 PM
A couple of interesting tidbits from the "Stadiums and Arenas" thread in the Canada section.

Calgary Stampeders may ride Flames coattails to new stadium (http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/03/12/calgary-stampeders-may-ride-flames-coattails-to-new-stadium)
Scott Mitchell, Calgary Sun Thursday, March 12, 2015

As of today, the Calgary Stampeders are the furthest thing from the envy of the Canadian Football League when it comes to stadiums.

While each and every franchise has either built a brand new venue or poured significant resources into renovations that reach far beyond cosmetic improvements over the past few years, football fans in Calgary have been left out in the cold, with the defending Grey Cup champions still calling a creaky, uncomfortable, 55-year-old McMahon Stadium home.

But there's hope on the horizon.

When Calgary Flames president and CEO Ken King teased new arena plans last week, saying an announcement regarding plans for a new downtown building were "a couple of weeks" from being unveiled, the stadium aspect was lost in the shuffle in this hockey-mad city.

Make no mistake, however, the Stampeders are tagging along, and when the plans shrouded in mystery are finally announced, the football club will play a major role.

The Hamilton Tiger-Cats (estimated cost of $146 million) and Winnipeg Blue Bombers (estimated cost of $209 million) have shiny new venues, while the Edmonton Eskimos, B.C. Lions, Ottawa RedBlacks and Montreal Alouettes have all poured huge dollars into refurbishing their respective stadiums.

The Saskatchewan Roughriders also have a new stadium on the way, which is currently slated to open in 2017 at an estimated cost of $278 million.

That leaves the Toronto Argonauts -- who wants to be mentioned in the same stadium conversation as that franchise right now? -- and the Stampeders as the only two organizations with iffy stadium situations, albeit for two much different reasons.

From a strictly football point of view, McMahon is perfectly capable of holding games well into the future, with new $1.35-million Field Turf laid down last spring.

But first downs and touchdowns are just part of the entertainment in this day and age, and McMahon lags in just about every aspect other than the view from your seat.

From a fan experience and comfort standpoint, despite dollars allocated to improve the in-game show last season with a new scoreboard and much-needed upgrades to amenities such as washrooms, concessions and cellphone reception, the University of Calgary-owned building pales in comparison to the raised bar around the league.

Former CFL commissioner Mark Cohon was pretty clear Calgary was next on the stadium to-do list when he visited McMahon in September 2013.

"This is still a great place, in terms of the environment, but as you see other venues and other stadiums being built, there's probably a little bit of jealousy that's going on with fans here," Cohon said.

"I don't have a timeline for what the ownership group wants to do here, but obviously, whether it's a retro-fit of this or a new stadium in part of their future plans, it is something we'd love to see."

King didn't offer much in the way of details last week in speaking with Calgary Sun columnist Michael Platt, other than the appetizer "people will love it."

Rumours have swirled over the new arena/stadium development anchoring a west-end makeover, while some prefer to believe it's bound for the the east end of downtown near the existing Saddledome.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi and city council are expected to get a look-see at the Flames' plans in the near future, but there are still more questions than answers, at this point, with funding models -- as always -- the key to everything.

Either way, football fans in this city now have something to look forward to.

If the arena is the main course, the stadium portion of the announcement is an extremely tasty side dish."

And
This from Green Party at riderfans.com (http://www.riderfans.com/forum/showthread.php?128838-Stampeders-may-finally-get-new-stadium&p=3322075&viewfull=1#post3322075)

Spoke with someone who has seen the plans and both stadiums are going to be extremely impressive. I believe it will be a 2018 opening for the Stamps (so I am not sure if it will be 17-18 season for the Flames or 18-19 - I think it was 17-18). Flames new home will be a new standard for the NHL and will be able to accommodate some of the larger music acts that usually pass Calgary by . Stampeders will have a greatly increased capacity and will be comfortable at all times of year. Calgary will be a regular Grey Cup stop in the future. This will be an extremely exciting announcement!

And there is also this from Scott Mitchell of the Calgary Sun
http://i60.tinypic.com/mtrrjb.jpg

McMurph
Mar 17, 2015, 4:35 PM
A couple of interesting tidbits from the "Stadiums and Arenas" thread in the Canada section.
Not sure these rumours are any more trustworthy than all the other rumours, but commenting on unsubstantiated rumour seems to be an OK way to pass the time while waiting for real information. So I have to say that I'm surprised with the "greatly increased capacity" bit, since there seems to be a sweet spot for size which McMahon isn't far off of. "Regular Grey Cup stop" would seem to imply some sort of climate control, be it a dome or retractable roof.

craner
Mar 17, 2015, 5:25 PM
Yeah - all we can do is speculate on rumours at this point.
Sure hope the unveiling is soon.

Black Star
Mar 17, 2015, 5:29 PM
I cant wait to see the plans you guys have. Exciting.:cheers:

Hope its not a Gong show like it was up here for years.

O-tacular
Mar 17, 2015, 5:57 PM
I cant wait to see the plans you guys have. Exciting.:cheers:

Hope its not a Gong show like it was up here for years.

I'm expecting something utilitarian and big. Nothing beautiful like your guys' arena but obviously a lot bigger. Beyond that I have no idea what to expect . Just hoping it's not Stampitecture or a sheet metal barn.

VIce
Mar 17, 2015, 6:04 PM
I cant wait to see the plans you guys have. Exciting.:cheers:

Hope its not a Gong show like it was up here for years.

I hope the press conference is just Daryl Katz saying he'll personally pay for it "because I just hate Edmonton like, so much".

Innersoul1
Mar 17, 2015, 6:20 PM
I am loving all of these little tid-bits. But I am also intrigued by how secretive the process has been. Exciting days ahead for sure!!

suburbia
Mar 29, 2015, 8:26 PM
Within how many weeks were we supposed to hear about this?

I'm starting to think this will get announced at the post Calgary Stanley Cup Win press conference (whenever that happens).

The Fisher Account
Mar 29, 2015, 9:15 PM
Within how many weeks were we supposed to hear about this?

I'm starting to think this will get announced at the post Calgary Stanley Cup Win press conference (whenever that happens).

Weeks!?!!?

This has been an ongoing saga for YEARS

Fuzz
Mar 29, 2015, 9:56 PM
I believe King's comment was by the end of the month. That was early March, though I guess he didn't mention which month, or year for that matter.

O-tacular
Mar 29, 2015, 11:45 PM
Weeks!?!!?

This has been an ongoing saga for YEARS

No kidding. I'll be shocked the day we actually see something.

Innersoul1
Mar 30, 2015, 2:06 AM
I am hoping that something comes of this sooner rather than later!
I am dying to see what all of the hype is about.

In other somewhat related news, Minnesota was awarded a MLS franchise for the 2018 season. If we ever hope to have an MLS team we need to start at the grassroots level. At this point Edmonton has a far superior chance as getting a team before we ever do.
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2015/03/25/history-mls-connections-and-minnesota-united-today-lowdown-soccer-twin-cities

Riise
Mar 30, 2015, 4:35 PM
If we ever hope to have an MLS team we need to start at the grassroots level. At this point Edmonton has a far superior chance as getting a team before we ever do.

Most definitely. However, Foothill S.C. look to be on the right track with their Youth setup and new PDL franchise.

Innersoul1
Mar 30, 2015, 4:50 PM
http://uslpdl.com/home/850180.html

Definitely a move in the right direction and they are looking to have a women's team in the W League for the 2016 season. Home field will be Hellard Field. I just hate to see soccer played on a field with Football lines. Why not use one of the grass fields at Shouldice? Like field 8 (it's the one you see from 16th Ave) as it was recently re-done.

By the looks of the teams they are playing, most games will be played on field-turf on football fields ( I wonder if the is a PDL requirement? Field turf that is). Some games will even be played on high school fields.

YYCguys
Mar 30, 2015, 8:02 PM
With the few tidbits of information that King has released time and again, and with the media reporting on it each and every time, whatever he has up his sleeve, had better be worth the wait and anticipation. Anything less will be a huge letdown.

Nudrock
Mar 30, 2015, 10:02 PM
With the few tidbits of information that King has released time and again, and with the media reporting on it each and every time, whatever he has up his sleeve, had better be worth the wait and anticipation. Anything less will be a huge letdown.

Has King really said anything other than a new home for the Flames and something for the Stamps is being worked on and that details will be released soon?

I think most of the bits have come from other sources of which most I would not trust.

Fuzz
Mar 30, 2015, 11:06 PM
Flames CEO Ken King says the team will reveal by the end of the month where they plan to build the arena and how they’ll pay for it. They’ve been working on the plans since at least 2007.

http://calgaryherald.com/storyline/no-that-cowboy-hat-shaped-arena-design-is-definitely-not-a-real-replacement-for-the-saddledome

That gives him until, tomorrow?

The Fisher Account
Mar 31, 2015, 12:31 AM
End of which month?

Fuzz
Mar 31, 2015, 12:36 AM
Well, he said it early march, so under any normal situation I'd assume this month, but given the track record the better question is which year.

Trans Canada
Mar 31, 2015, 12:39 AM
Exciting days ahead for sure!!Exciting days... and days.... and weeks.....

Innersoul1
Mar 31, 2015, 3:18 PM
Exciting days... and days.... and weeks.....

touche.:cheers:

Calgarian
Mar 31, 2015, 3:21 PM
End of which month?

March 2017.

Bigtime
Mar 31, 2015, 3:34 PM
Has King really said anything other than a new home for the Flames and something for the Stamps is being worked on and that details will be released soon?

I think most of the bits have come from other sources of which most I would not trust.

King's comments of "a few weeks" seem to have been going on for the better part of two years now.

It's driving some of the Calgarypuck crowd crazy, I'm just sitting back and not really trying to pay attention. Once it hits I'll jump right in.

YYCguys
Mar 31, 2015, 4:36 PM
End of which month?

Haha! So true!

O-tacular
Mar 31, 2015, 6:56 PM
Well it's the last day of the month. I swear we need a groundhog or something to tell us how many more days it will be til we see plans for the new arena complex.

nick.flood
Mar 31, 2015, 8:28 PM
delete

H.E.Pennypacker
Mar 31, 2015, 8:31 PM
I think with the Flames being in the playoff run they want to wait till the dust settles on that. Once the Flames are out they'll go public with the news as a pick-me-up.

This was my thought as well .. I need some sort of glimmering hope that plans will be revealed in the near guture

YYCguys
Apr 1, 2015, 11:41 AM
Yup, "end of the month", well this month anyways, has come and gone and still no announcement. I guess that's par for the course for this guy. How can he be trusted if he keeps delaying an announcement? What's he playing at?

red_179
Apr 1, 2015, 12:55 PM
Yup, "end of the month", well this month anyways, has come and gone and still no announcement. I guess that's par for the course for this guy. How can he be trusted if he keeps delaying an announcement? What's he playing at?

Someone on Calgary Puck mentioned a week or so ago that Ken King was giving a speech at an event and that he mentioned that the reveal would happen after the election.

Bigtime
Apr 1, 2015, 1:02 PM
Someone on Calgary Puck mentioned a week or so ago that Ken King was giving a speech at an event and that he mentioned that the reveal would happen after the election.

He must have meant the Nigerian election, announcement today? :D

Fuzz
Apr 1, 2015, 1:48 PM
Someone on Calgary Puck mentioned a week or so ago that Ken King was giving a speech at an event and that he mentioned that the reveal would happen after the election.
The election that hasn't been announced yet? So we are looking at sometime between what, May 2015 and May 2016. Also, if that's the case, I assume the Province is going to fork over public money, and it would be pretty bad optics to do it before the election. But that's my cynical side speaking.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 1, 2015, 2:53 PM
There was a bit of a stir with the province thinking about providing lottery money after the 2012 election to arenas. The Wildrose by whole hog endorsing the introduction of Keno to fund sports facilities (http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/01/03/use-keno-lottery-to-fund-downtown-edmonton-arena-wildrose-leader-danielle-smith) screwed up the province's timeline and short circuited the decision making process. (The Government was forced to respond, and when you don't have a decision about potential changes, you defend the status quo).

Also Keno wouldn't have raised enough money - it raises more in BC because they don't have VLTs.

O-tacular
Apr 1, 2015, 4:22 PM
The election that hasn't been announced yet? So we are looking at sometime between what, May 2015 and May 2016. Also, if that's the case, I assume the Province is going to fork over public money, and it would be pretty bad optics to do it before the election. But that's my cynical side speaking.

I hope that's an April fool's joke but sadly I could see it happening. I'm sure it will be under the guise of land redevelopment subsidies or something too. Quite ironic at a time when they are freezing all spending on education and healthcare. Ken King's promise of not going after taxpayers seems like smoke and mirrors at this point. Fucking billionaire's begging for public charity. Ha!

craner
Apr 1, 2015, 6:50 PM
I hope that's an April fool's joke but sadly I could see it happening. I'm sure it will be under the guise of land redevelopment subsidies or something too. Quite ironic at a time when they are freezing all spending on education and healthcare. Ken King's promise of not going after taxpayers seems like smoke and mirrors at this point. Fucking billionaire's begging for public charity. Ha!

Have you heard that they are asking for public money ?

The Fisher Account
Apr 1, 2015, 8:24 PM
Have you heard that they are asking for public money ?

All I can remember seeing is that there will be 'significant' private investment and lots of public benefits.

Great way of dodging the question.

suburbia
Apr 1, 2015, 8:32 PM
All I can remember seeing is that there will be 'significant' private investment and lots of public benefits.

Great way of dodging the question.

https://twitter.com/jimprentice/status/560669461909209088

MalcolmTucker
Apr 1, 2015, 8:41 PM
https://twitter.com/jimprentice/status/560669461909209088

People conduct waaaaaay too much kremlinology.

Bigtime
Apr 2, 2015, 12:55 PM
Jason Markusoff gets the scoop!

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/triple-play-flames-megaproject-pitch-includes-arena-stadium-amateur-sports-house

West Village
New Arena
New Football Stadium/Fieldhouse

bt04ku
Apr 2, 2015, 1:00 PM
http://media.giphy.com/media/YPIrsRqqO7oB2/giphy.gif

DizzyEdge
Apr 2, 2015, 1:04 PM
damn, beat me by 7 minutes

WaitWhat?
Apr 2, 2015, 2:23 PM
If the flames throw in a fieldhouse and agree to pay for reclamation on the creosote site, there will be significant public benefit paid for by the flames. The city gives up the land and agrees to realign the roads.

Win, win, win.

Let's get this done.

craner
Apr 2, 2015, 2:31 PM
Yep - first baby step taken, now for the public unvieling, hopefully sooner than later.
Hard to contain my excitment though.

Govertical
Apr 2, 2015, 2:40 PM
Finally!!!!!
But to me it seems like a LOT to condense onto a tight site! the only thing I dread is more garbage in the river because of it..

craner
Apr 2, 2015, 3:00 PM
With the stadium and arena in West Village it would be nice to have some NW & South trains running from Sunalta station on event days. Don't know how they would stage them however ?
Would be great if the Crowchild / Bow Tr. cluster can be fixed as part of this too.

Surrealplaces
Apr 2, 2015, 3:01 PM
Now that City Hall has seen the proposal, we should see something shortly. I'm not surprised it's the West Village, not my first choice, but I think it's a decent spot. Lot's of potential there.

Great potential to do something like they did in Ottawa or San Diego, by working in some residential development around it.

CalgaryAlex
Apr 2, 2015, 3:09 PM
Now that City Hall has seen the proposal, we should see something shortly. I'm not surprised it's the West Village, not my first choice, but I think it's a decent spot. Lot's of potential there.

Great potential to do something like they did in Ottawa or San Diego, by working in some residential development around it.

I really hope there is a mix of residential and commercial in the plans. If they are going to redevelop that area of downtown, might as well try and make it an activity center for more than event nights.

The fieldhouse should add some activity in the area most days, but with people working and living in the area, it would be a bustling part of downtown instead of what the area around the Saddledome looks like right now when there isn't an event happening.

craner
Apr 2, 2015, 3:11 PM
^^That's what I'm hoping as well Surreal.
I think there is definitly a market for people who would want to live close to this sort of thing.
Maybe we'll finally get a new DT hotel too! On that note, I heard the International Hotel tower #2 proposal is dead, owners are looking in a different direction for that property (sorry for the off topic).

Fuzz
Apr 2, 2015, 3:31 PM
With the stadium and arena in West Village it would be nice to have some NW & South trains running from Sunalta station on event days. Don't know how they would stage them however ?
Would be great if the Crowchild / Bow Tr. cluster can be fixed as part of this too.
It'd be nice if CT had maybe a $1 ticket to go from anywhere on the free fare zone to Sunalta as well.

Luk_o
Apr 2, 2015, 3:42 PM
Mikey's is about to get a hell of alot busier.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 2, 2015, 3:43 PM
It'd be nice if CT had maybe a $1 ticket to go from anywhere on the free fare zone to Sunalta as well.

Free fare zone expansion tickets included in event tickets maybe.

tomthumb2
Apr 2, 2015, 4:13 PM
If the field house is combined with the stadium I sure hope they make it so the stands slide over the track. That's one of the complaints about Commonwealth - the track (which is now covered) requires extra room meaning fans are that much further from the action.

Another thing he didn't mention in the article but widely rumored is a fixed roof. If field house is going to be used year round this might be valid. Some people will be pissed about that but I'm ok with it. Not gonna satisfy everyone. Lets just get it done!

And show us the damn plans already!

Surrealplaces
Apr 2, 2015, 4:19 PM
I'm also glad to see the city work is working with them on this. I'm not too concerned with the city being involved with a land swap. I know some people will complain about that if indeed this is the case, but IMO it's a decent tradeoff for getting a new stadium and arena, and a potential catalyst for development of a new area.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 2, 2015, 4:24 PM
I'm fine with land swap plus whatever the value of the current yearly subsidy is for tax abatement, and infrastructure that was going to be moved around anyways.

Riise
Apr 2, 2015, 5:16 PM
The more details that King shares, the more important seeing a design becomes. Getting just one of an arena, field house or stadium done well is hard enough, all three in one will truly be a mega-project.

suburbia
Apr 2, 2015, 6:20 PM
If the flames throw in a fieldhouse and agree to pay for reclamation on the creosote site, there will be significant public benefit paid for by the flames. The city gives up the land and agrees to realign the roads.

Win, win, win.

Let's get this done.

You're saying win, win, win, but before we jump real fast, what is the value of all that land. Couple hundred million?

Also, who pays for all the infrastructure costs that will be required? Major roadways will need to be moved! I think they are not highlighting this in advance of the reveal to get public on board and excited.

Fuzz
Apr 2, 2015, 6:36 PM
The major roadways need to be moved anyway if the West Village plan goes ahead, so I think that one is a wash. Value of land though, absolutely. I hope we don't give it away without special taxes to recoup the value over years.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 2, 2015, 6:56 PM
The major roadways need to be moved anyway if the West Village plan goes ahead, so I think that one is a wash. Value of land though, absolutely. I hope we don't give it away without special taxes to recoup the value over years.

I imagine it will just be a long term land lease.

Riise
Apr 2, 2015, 7:12 PM
If the flames throw in a fieldhouse and agree to pay for reclamation on the creosote site, there will be significant public benefit paid for by the flames. The city gives up the land and agrees to realign the roads.

Win, win, win.

Let's get this done.

I have to agree, to an extent, with Suburbia. If their development has an impact on local infrastructure, shouldn't they be assessed an Impact Fee to cover the extent of their impact? Further to this point, the reclamation of the land is a bit of a wash because their development will probably occupy most of the land no?

The Field House would be the only public contribution and would its value exceed the value of the land plus future property tax that could be collected from alternative forms of development that would provide similar public benefits?

Spring2008
Apr 2, 2015, 7:16 PM
Nothing new really, but good to some confirmation on site plus scope.

suburbia
Apr 2, 2015, 7:20 PM
I imagine it will just be a long term land lease.

What is the value of a 50 or 99 year lease for a $200M piece of land?

The major roadways need to be moved anyway if the West Village plan goes ahead, so I think that one is a wash.

How can you call it a wash without understanding the details IE extent of changes required for a combined arena, stadium and field house will be massive and far greater than for west village. Also, the opportunity cost is even more massive. What is the lost value, direct and otherwise, of losing out on the West Village development intensity, including residential density, arts and culture density, and associated taxes? We can't "grow" another West Village like piece of land and double decker our core. You can't treat this like lack of business sense healthcare decision making (IE it is better so spend the money, who cares how much).

Now all the above being said, I do like that this is a combined multi-use project, and I fully agree there is value for the city. So let's see all the details so we can comment on substance. I've extremely excited to see the proposal, and can think of numerous things the city and its people could do with a facility like this, which are not possible for us to this point.

I have to agree, to an extent, with Suburbia. If their development has an impact on local infrastructure, shouldn't they be assessed an Impact Fee to cover the extent of their impact? Further to this point, the reclamation of the land is a bit of a wash because their development will probably occupy most of the land no?

You're a good man (or woman) ... (or other).

MalcolmTucker
Apr 2, 2015, 7:35 PM
What is the value of a 50 or 99 year lease for a $200M piece of land?


Meh. Who cares. Because sports!

The Flames have an arena now where they pay no civic property taxes, and the Stamps have a Stadium that is similar. They lease the Dome for a nominal amount.

If the city forced the Stampede Board to pay for its ongoing use of city assets they would be run out of town too.

Sometimes to get something you want you just have to ignore the cost when the cost is just missing out on known unknowables.

I bet the city will be super glad in 50 years to have the opprotunity to redo the sports district into who knows what! Super dense residential? Downtown phase 2? Are we to account for those future potential benefits too? :cool:

suburbia
Apr 2, 2015, 7:46 PM
The Flames have an arena now where they pay no civic property taxes, and the Stamps have a Stadium that is similar. They lease the Dome for a nominal amount.

Interesting comments. Focusing in on what you're written above, here are my thoughts ...

1. I wish legitimate charities would get such treatment!
2. What is the value of all these concessions over the last 35+ years, over which time the value of the Flames has gone up massively, creating billionaires from millionaires?
3. Is the fact that these folks have received such sweet deals now set the starting bar at doing the same, and or even starting to negotiate at that point?

I'd rather this be like the city budget, which transitioned to zero-based budgeting so areas couldn't create a house of cards justification on why they needed even more.

Still - I want this to happen - but it just needs to be fair. Enough of this "I made you billions, so now I need to ensure all of your three kids get billions too" mentality.

Fuzz
Apr 2, 2015, 7:56 PM
Suburbia, I just meant the roads situation was a wash, since they need to be re-done anyway to make use of the area. I guess the argument is that maybe a stadium complex will for the city to do it sooner, so there is that. I agreed with you on the rest of it.

rotten42
Apr 2, 2015, 7:58 PM
Would be great if the Crowchild / Bow Tr. cluster can be fixed as part of this too.


This is where I think if you see public money where it will go.

WaitWhat?
Apr 2, 2015, 8:18 PM
I have to agree, to an extent, with Suburbia. If their development has an impact on local infrastructure, shouldn't they be assessed an Impact Fee to cover the extent of their impact? Further to this point, the reclamation of the land is a bit of a wash because their development will probably occupy most of the land no?

The Field House would be the only public contribution and would its value exceed the value of the land plus future property tax that could be collected from alternative forms of development that would provide similar public benefits?


The impact on local infrastructure in regards to re-routing the Bow Trail / 14th Street mess might be something the city would have done anyway with regard to West Village redevelopment. The reclamation of land isn't a wash because the alternative is for the city/province to spend a large amount in reclamation before developers could condo the area. This saves the city/province the cost of the alternative to an arena. The fact that the flames would have to do it anyway is beside the point.

Innersoul1
Apr 2, 2015, 8:47 PM
I wonder if Druh might tweet her thoughts.

Riise
Apr 2, 2015, 8:53 PM
The impact on local infrastructure in regards to re-routing the Bow Trail / 14th Street mess might be something the city would have done anyway with regard to West Village redevelopment.

Yes but just like the 4th Street underpass, the costs would partially be recovered via a levy or DP condition.


The reclamation of land isn't a wash because the alternative is for the city/province to spend a large amount in reclamation before developers could condo the area.

Has it been stated that the land will only be sold once remediation is complete?

MalcolmTucker
Apr 2, 2015, 8:57 PM
Yes but just like the 4th Street underpass, the costs would partially be recovered via a levy or DP condition.




Has it been stated that the land will only be sold once remediation is complete?

Our own Wooster said as much in emails FOIP'd from his work. Basically the land right now has close to negative value if you want/need to remediate it. Or at least the cost of the remediation and infrastructure changes basically equals 30 years of property taxes from the developed area.

That is right, if developed as a residential neighbourhood it basically contributes no taxes to the city and instead uses that money to pay for all the changes needed to host residential.

So how would exempting an arena be worsE?

Policy Wonk
Apr 2, 2015, 9:33 PM
With the stadium and arena in West Village it would be nice to have some NW & South trains running from Sunalta station on event days. Don't know how they would stage them however ?

I would contemplate instead extending the 7th Ave terminus track that runs parallel to the elevated track, under or across 14th street and into the basement of the new facility and shoot it back and forth between there and the 7th Street station. During off-peak hours it shouldn't be too difficult for it to slip in and out between N.W. trains.

UofC.engineer
Apr 2, 2015, 9:41 PM
I would contemplate instead extending the 8th Ave terminus track that runs parallel to the elevated track, under 14th street and into the basement of the new facility and shoot it back and forth between there and the 7th Street station. During off-peak hours it shouldn't be too difficult for it to slip in and out between N.W. trains.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you.

Are you talking about the future 8th ave subway for the 201 line? Run that from 9th street underground to the basement of the new arena?

It's about 1km from 9th street to the Greyhound station.

Policy Wonk
Apr 2, 2015, 9:46 PM
Sorry, typo, 7th Ave.

The West LRT spurs off at grade immediately North of the skateboard park to a dead-end just past the western end of the parking lot.

UofC.engineer
Apr 2, 2015, 10:26 PM
Sorry, typo, 7th Ave.

The West LRT spurs off at grade immediately North of the skateboard park to a dead-end just past the western end of the parking lot.

Ohhh, I gotcha. I see the spur line now.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Calgary,+AB/@51.0467163,-114.0916487,145m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x537170039f843fd5:0x266d3bb1b652b63a

Not a bad idea, just run a single track under 14th street to the new arena.

Ferry a few loads of Flames/stamps fans along a single track to the new arena/stadium. Give the C-train operators free tickets to game while the trains wait idly below. Then when the game lets out everyone goes home.

Policy Wonk
Apr 2, 2015, 10:53 PM
You could only really do a single train, it would be going against the flow once it hit downtown and would have to be turned around and on it's way before the next N.W. train hits the 7th Street station. But very doable late at night or on a weekend afternoon.

suburbia
Apr 2, 2015, 10:57 PM
You could only really do a single train, it would be going against the flow once it hit downtown and would have to be turned around and on it's way before the next N.W. train hits the 7th Street station. But very doable late at night or on a weekend afternoon.

It is actually a very interesting idea. Would need to be waterproof though.

joe498
Apr 3, 2015, 2:57 AM
Interesting development:

Creosote contamination may hamper arena plans for West Village
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/reaction-to-flames-arena-plans

suburbia
Apr 3, 2015, 4:27 AM
Interesting development:

Creosote contamination may hamper arena plans for West Village
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/reaction-to-flames-arena-plans

Suddenly Firepark doesn't sound so bad!

DoubleK
Apr 3, 2015, 4:47 AM
It's creosote, not nuclear waste. It can be cleaned up.

RyLucky
Apr 3, 2015, 4:51 AM
Free fare zone expansion tickets included in event tickets maybe.

This should be the case already.