View Full Version : New Downtown Calgary Arena
WhipperSnapper
Aug 18, 2015, 7:38 PM
Ownership is overrated on an asset that depreciates by tens of millions on opening day. Management is where it's at.
suburbia
Aug 18, 2015, 7:42 PM
I know it is conceptual, but thought I'd comment a pinch about it anyway, as some things will likely be retained from this concept:
- looks like they are proposing a clear and/or transluscent roof for the arena portion, which is very, very cool.
- looks like the stands are skewed more to one side, and that side can have seats that come out over that portion of the running track.
- as speculated previously, the north-south corridor envisioned between the arena and stadium is the train station, and it does indeed look like speculated that some concourse and some high end boxes will both be shared between the two primary facilities.
- the drawings from above seem to show a portion of the building extending west well past the edge of the stadium. Is there more to this, IE are there more meeting / conference rooms, or something else, or am I just dreaming? [maybe it is just stacked parking?? - hopefully field has underground also]
- the stadium doesn't seem massive, but perhaps the seating is more stacked than I'm thinking.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMtl94TWoAAYULp.jpg
Image via Twitter.com public account of Dale Calkins (https://twitter.com/DaleCalkins/status/633712293411454977)
Now for the inner city NIMBY responses ...
Spring2008
Aug 18, 2015, 7:50 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty underwhelmed by that presentation.
Not just you, when are they going to hire an architect?
I do really like the glass roof though and retractable seats for the track space. MLS anyone? The indoor stadium will really allow us to attract a lot of different big events here. Great opportunity.
Fuzz
Aug 18, 2015, 7:53 PM
So, question here... There is an arena, and... is it a stadium, field house or both at once? Or is this not meant to replace McMahon?
MalcolmTucker
Aug 18, 2015, 7:54 PM
Both at once, meant to replace McMahon.
suburbia
Aug 18, 2015, 7:58 PM
So, question here... There is an arena, and... is it a stadium, field house or both at once? Or is this not meant to replace McMahon?
Both at once, meant to replace McMahon.
Yeah - I thought that was pretty clear from the on-set. The idea is basically rooted in a stadium like McMahon not being used at the appropriate intensity for such infrastructure, and so allowing for other purposes maybe 80% of the time or whatever. I do appreciate and like that concept.
I'm wondering if any logistics were discussed? Things like road capacities and implications, transit capacities and implications, parking? If there is a major event at both venues, which is possible even if the games do not coincide, that could be maybe 60,000 people at once, and wondering about the implications of that.
DoubleK
Aug 18, 2015, 7:59 PM
I wonder how much design work has actually gone into this thing. Surely the price tag is based on some measure of engineering/design.
MasterG
Aug 18, 2015, 8:06 PM
This is exactly the kind of city-building, visionary leadership group we should invest a $500 million of public money with:
"King said it was “dumb luck” that Sunalta LRT was built near the proposed West Village site but “it works perfectly.”" - Calgary Herald (http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames/flames-reveal-details-of-900m-downtown-arena-stadium-plan)
Dumb luck? Sunalta has been a proposed station since the 1980s, not to mention actually in the blueprints of the WLRT since about 2005, and built in 2012.
Someone who talks about how visionary their project will be and how well positioned it is certainly could pretend to do a modicum of research on what strengths their proposal has and what opportunities this project can take advantage of, Sunalta Station being the main one.
Overall I give the proposal a C-; mainly for too much public money involved as well as complete ignorance of Bow Trail's role in destroying any proposed vitality the area is supposed to have once built.
UofC.engineer
Aug 18, 2015, 8:18 PM
This is exactly the kind of city-building, visionary leadership group we should invest a $500 million of public money with:
"King said it was “dumb luck” that Sunalta LRT was built near the proposed West Village site but “it works perfectly.”" - Calgary Herald (http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames/flames-reveal-details-of-900m-downtown-arena-stadium-plan)
Dumb luck? Sunalta has been a proposed station since the 1980s, not to mention actually in the blueprints of the WLRT since about 2005, and built in 2012.
Someone who talks about how visionary their project will be and how well positioned it is certainly could pretend to do a modicum of research on what strengths their proposal has and what opportunities this project can take advantage of, Sunalta Station being the main one.
Overall I give the proposal a C-; mainly for too much public money involved as well as complete ignorance of Bow Trail's role in destroying any proposed vitality the area is supposed to have once built.
I agree with everyone's sentiments on the future of Bow Trail. But before we jump the gun we need to remember that this is just a conceptual plan. Let's wait and see what the updated ASP produces. I believe CMLC will be overseeing the development of West Village. :cheers:
artvandelay
Aug 18, 2015, 8:21 PM
This is exactly the kind of city-building, visionary leadership group we should invest a $500 million of public money with:
"King said it was “dumb luck” that Sunalta LRT was built near the proposed West Village site but “it works perfectly.”" - Calgary Herald (http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames/flames-reveal-details-of-900m-downtown-arena-stadium-plan)
Dumb luck? Sunalta has been a proposed station since the 1980s, not to mention actually in the blueprints of the WLRT since about 2005, and built in 2012.
Someone who talks about how visionary their project will be and how well positioned it is certainly could pretend to do a modicum of research on what strengths their proposal has and what opportunities this project can take advantage of, Sunalta Station being the main one.
I'm not sure what your point is here. The plans to build a joint football/hockey complex only came about after the Flames purchased the Stampeders in 2012. The West LRT was designed prior to this. It's obviously lucky that an elevated station capable of handling high volumes was built adjacent to a site capable of accommodating a complex of this size when there was no plan in place for this previously.
Overall I give the proposal a C-; mainly for too much public money involved as well as complete ignorance of Bow Trail's role in destroying any proposed vitality the area is supposed to have once built.
This is also puzzling to me considering that what they've proposed to do with the street grid is similar to what's in the West Village ARP. What would you suggest doing with Bow trail?
Tunneling the the northern section of the road would be ideal to allow for a riverfront promenade with active retail alongside the stadium, but that is likely cost prohibitive. Attractive streetscaping with ample sidewalk room can also go a long way towards improving the pedestrian experience there.
Fuzz
Aug 18, 2015, 8:24 PM
If they do go with underground parking under the stadium, I'd think it would make sense to bury Bow trail at the same time, and it could have same grade access to the parking area. Keep it totally hidden. Any precedent for parking under a stadium?
Migs
Aug 18, 2015, 8:31 PM
I know it is conceptual, but thought I'd comment a pinch about it anyway, as some things will likely be retained from this concept:
- looks like they are proposing a clear and/or transluscent roof for the arena portion, which is very, very cool.
- looks like the stands are skewed more to one side, and that side can have seats that come out over that portion of the running track.
- as speculated previously, the north-south corridor envisioned between the arena and stadium is the train station, and it does indeed look like speculated that some concourse and some high end boxes will both be shared between the two primary facilities.
- the drawings from above seem to show a portion of the building extending west well past the edge of the stadium. Is there more to this, IE are there more meeting / conference rooms, or something else, or am I just dreaming? [maybe it is just stacked parking?? - hopefully field has underground also]
- the stadium doesn't seem massive, but perhaps the seating is more stacked than I'm thinking.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMtl94TWoAAYULp.jpg
Image via Twitter.com public account of Dale Calkins (https://twitter.com/DaleCalkins/status/633712293411454977)
Now for the inner city NIMBY responses ...
With this image it looks like there would be an incredibly small capacity for the stadium, only seating on one side it looks. So no more Grey Cups for Calgary?
MalcolmTucker
Aug 18, 2015, 8:36 PM
With this image it looks like there would be an incredibly small capacity for the stadium, only seating on one side it looks. So no more Grey Cups for Calgary?
30,000 normal, 50,000 for special events.
H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 18, 2015, 8:46 PM
http://calgarynext.com/
The website is up
I will say there is a ton of potential here to make this something awesome and transform the core of the City
Migs
Aug 18, 2015, 8:46 PM
30,000 normal, 50,000 for special events.
Would love to see how they cram that amount in there. Hope it's possible.
CalgaryArchitecture
Aug 18, 2015, 8:53 PM
calgarynext.com
https://i.gyazo.com/d2b9fed1f52489a7c9bbfd91dc5f9137.png
Overview Numbers:
https://i.gyazo.com/b2dfb9f1523474490221c8282f5d5bf7.png
Inside Arena
http://calgarynext.com/img/Arena-Event-Centre.png
Overview:
http://calgarynext.com/img/content/events-centre.jpg
Inside Stadium:
http://calgarynext.com/img/content/fieldhouse.jpg
Retractable Seating for CFL:
https://i.gyazo.com/84d97c0685300c2856502a6bfadbc66e.png
Fieldhouse Scenario:
https://i.gyazo.com/d14180c0a9fd4517471f44807ecd28b3.png
Public LRT:
http://calgarynext.com/img/content/public-transit.jpg
CalgaryAlex
Aug 18, 2015, 9:06 PM
Only 750 residences? High potential for Bow Trail to stay the exact same? Blah.
The fieldhouse and arena plans are fine with me, but they've just plopped this thing into the site of the Greyhound station without making real changes to the area around it.
The city puts in a huge chunk of change just to get stuck with the current Bow/Crow/14th alignment and no upgrade to the river front? Yuck. Hopefully the CMLC gets involved and gives the West Village a real transformation.
Electrical Storm
Aug 18, 2015, 9:06 PM
Ken King isn't much of a public speaker is he... :/
"And here's the money shot" [When discussing project financials]
DizzyEdge
Aug 18, 2015, 9:23 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMtl94TWoAAYULp.jpg
With this image it looks like there would be an incredibly small capacity for the stadium, only seating on one side it looks. So no more Grey Cups for Calgary?
I think that might be showing the bleachers as red on the south end and white on the north end
Anyway, agreed that they should move Bow Tr from the river side.
Even if it meant having to elevate one direction over the other at some point (although I don't think it does)
DizzyEdge
Aug 18, 2015, 9:32 PM
Ken King isn't much of a public speaker is he... :/
"And here's the money shot" [When discussing project financials]
http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif
Electrical Storm
Aug 18, 2015, 9:35 PM
Hopefully the CMLC gets involved and gives the West Village a real transformation.
Looks like they will be involved, though there are more parties involved here than in EV.... should be nice to see the riverwalk eventually span from Fort Calgary and St. Patrick's in the East to the pumphouse theater in the West.
H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 18, 2015, 9:44 PM
From Nenshi about today's announcement:
However, there are a number of challenges that must now be addressed:
- The proposal has not been part of The City's comprehensive capital planning process, and does not form part of the plan, under which the City's capital funds are fully allocated through 2018.
- The proposal includes incorporating The City’s proposed (and much-needed) fieldhouse into the facility. However, that project, while a very high priority for the City, remains unfunded.
- The funding proposal includes a $250 million “ticket tax”, but it is unclear if The City will be asked to provide the upfront financing for this.
- The proposed site requires significant expenditures to remediate the environmental contamination there. That remediation is also unfunded.
- In addition, the proposal requires the contribution of land, a community revitalization levy and significant investments in infrastructure to make the
West Village a complete and vibrant community.
Therefore, there are very significant requirements for public funding beyond the fieldhouse funding, and there is currently no money.
I have said for a long time—and continue to strongly believe—that public money must be for public benefit and not private profit. The question for Council, the ownership group, and all Calgarians is whether this proposal meets that test.
http://calgarymayor.ca/stories/mayor-nenshis-statement-on-a-new-arena-stadium-fieldhouse-proposal
ByeByeBaby
Aug 18, 2015, 9:59 PM
I wonder how much design work has actually gone into this thing. Surely the price tag is based on some measure of engineering/design.
From their website:
How we estimated the overall cost
With the approximate size of 127,788 sm for CalgaryNEXT, we estimated the total cost of the development assuming construction would begin in 2017. In doing so, we have accessed a large database of the actual construction costs of other recently constructed Event Centres and Stadiums.
In addition to using historical construction costs, we consulted local construction professionals with intimate knowledge of the market in Calgary to help developing the construction budget for all components of the CalgaryNEXT. The estimated costs for professional design services, project management and administration, pre-opening costs and furniture, fixtures and equipment are also included in the estimates.
In other words, pulled almost entirely out of their ass. Embarrassing. I would ask an 8 year old to do better costing before buying them a puppy.
suburbia
Aug 18, 2015, 9:59 PM
If they do go with underground parking under the stadium, I'd think it would make sense to bury Bow trail at the same time, and it could have same grade access to the parking area. Keep it totally hidden. Any precedent for parking under a stadium?
Putting Bow trail underground is a completely different bowl of wax my friend. That would be a "hundreds of millions" project on its own. Seriously.
As a general comment on this issue of squeezing out public realm and vitality, that is really a symptom of the scale of west village. It is a pinch on the small side for this type of thing, which could only be circumvented if the complex was built elsewhere on a larger plot of land.
*Stardust*
Aug 18, 2015, 10:03 PM
Needs more residential for sure. 750 units doesn't seem like a lot?
At first I wanted to wait and see what the plans were before giving an opinion, but I truly do think Bow trail needs to be moved. This is just the beginning though, I'm assuming changes will be made accordingly as time goes on. We need to be vocal about this to the City.
outoftheice
Aug 18, 2015, 10:11 PM
Thumbs up for what the Flames are proposing to accomplish. Thumbs down that it does nothing to realign Bow Trail and add park space to our river-front. A proposal that realigns westbound Bow Trail to the south side of the complex, borrows the 'grand staircase' concept from the west village proposal so that the realigned Bow Trails don't form a barrier to pedestrian connectivity and then an East Village style riverwalk with added park space along the river would change this proposal into a two thumbs up winner in my books.
lubicon
Aug 18, 2015, 10:16 PM
30 000 seating for the stadium is pathetic. Needs to be 40 in my opinion, and expandable to 50 for special events. Anything less is a waste of money.
H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 18, 2015, 10:17 PM
I suspect we're far from the finished product (and yes I realize it's just a concept design) but I believe the City will want some major things changed (density, Bow Trail alignment) if they're paying for half of it.
I get the impression that the only thing that has been discussed between KK and the City is settling on the best location for the new arena/fieldhouse.
Spring2008
Aug 18, 2015, 10:17 PM
From the press conference, Ken mentions these are not the final designs.
Additional funding may become available through the new city charter.
It would be great for the city to manage more of its own tax income. We currently pay approx $4B more than we get back annually to the provincial govt which is absolutely ridiculous.
Socguy
Aug 18, 2015, 10:20 PM
The clean up costs are sunk. It will happen no matter what. The city should have been carrying an unfunded liability on its books as it assembled the land. Now, whether it is desirable to remediate to the point of adding residential, the city already decided cost unseen that that is the case.
The clean up costs are sunk is a bit simplistic. When I listened to the presentation, KK made the point multiple times that the current contamination is a Provincial liability, HOWEVER, if the city starts to work the site they (the city) then assume liability. Hence why nobody has done anything with the site, they're hoping the other party moves first.
If this is the case, the city, (and it's taxpayers) would be well advised to pressure the Province to uphold its responsibilities instead plowing ahead and assuming those costs on behalf of Calgarians.
suburbia
Aug 18, 2015, 10:35 PM
Needs more residential for sure. 750 units doesn't seem like a lot?
Agree, but reason is, West Village is too small for anything really transformational and truly multi-use (IE with balanced increases in retail, restaurant, residential, commercial, entertainment).
Calgarian
Aug 18, 2015, 10:35 PM
Looks promising!
Chealion
Aug 18, 2015, 11:06 PM
Agree, but reason is, West Village is too small for anything really transformational and truly multi-use (IE with balanced increases in retail, restaurant, residential, commercial, entertainment).
Have you looked at the existing West Village ARP? Long term plan would see a multi-use area with as much as 13 thousand residents and 9000 jobs. (A bit high I think - but even at half that - it's a respectable amount)
http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgary.ca%2fPDA%2fpd%2fDocuments%2fPublications%2fwest-village-arp.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1
Socguy
Aug 18, 2015, 11:13 PM
My take: The combined building seems like a fantastic piece of infrastructure and it would be a great replacement facility for both the Stamps and for the Flames to use and a much better fan experience attending events there.:cool:
OTOH, the amount of public money and debt KK seems to be asking for shocked even me and I was fully expecting a big ask. Without going into too great of detail, I'm not convinced that a CRL is and appropriate funding mechanism for this project in this area of the city as once it's cleaned up, there is no reason not to believe that development would not flourish. Perhaps a CRL would be appropriate to clean up the contamination but, again, once that happened this stadium/arena structure would not seem to be necessary to spur development of this area. KK seems to be trying to follow the Edmonton funding model but he's failing to acknowledge the differences. When sober minds take a look at the project in the next few weeks/months I believe these significant differences between the cores of both cities will begin to dawn on them. One (Calgary) is flourishing while the other was languishing.
Ticket tax, I'm neutral on. It's user pay which is fine but if the city is responsible for fronting the cost it will add to the city debt which could reduce the cities ability to borrow for other priorities.
Cleanup. Where does this money come from? Province? City? Do we launch a 2nd CRL to do this?
The potential hidden cost: The city will own the building, great. It benefits KK that way because he then doesn't need to purchase the land. Problem being is that depending on how much rent the Flames are going to pay to use that facility, the city could be sacrificing huge $$$ in potential revenue if they had just gone ahead with an East Village style development on the site.
This is just off the top of my head and I'm sure others will have a better grasp on the nitty gritty of the funding. Fundamentally, as nice as this building is, the primary beneficiary will be ownership of the Flames/Stamps and given the choice, I'd rather see the money invested in things like transit.
Bokimon
Aug 18, 2015, 11:21 PM
My thoughts: 6/10
I like the dual facilities interconnected as one mega complex to bring thousands of people into the area at once. I also love the roof how it can be open and closed, the owners should ensure they make full use of our sunny climate as we are the sunniest city in Canada.
Nay: The circulation of the Pedestrian and Cars appears to be a nightmare. Lots and lots of research and design work needs to be done to somehow streamline 50,000 people and many thousands of cars that will be coming in and out in various directions.
There are opportunities to improve existing roadways and at the very least I think an additional lane should be included ontop of whatever realignment work is to be proposed for Bow Tr. All pedestrian circulation should basically be elevated above the roadways seeing the site itself is rather tight with surrounding condos that will be a part of this neighborhood.
Parking needs to be addressed somehow as many fans are living in the burbs fanning out in all directions. Maybe even build a parking structure further away and have people walk a km or so to the venue (The walk is something of that sort currently whether from the LRT station or the more distant surface lots at the stampede grounds). Or have some kind of shuttle service to ferry people back and forth, the long windy wagons that you see at amusement parks.
Stadium seating should be higher than originally proposed and same with the hockey rink.
My dream would be to have this project awarded to the likes of RTKL or ZAHA HADID to design this entire complex, I would pack up all my assets and buy one of the first condos that goes on sale at that site in the coming years!
Also would love to have a Marriott or Renaissance setup a property in the middle of the complex so the hotel rooms can view into either venue, kind of like the one at ROgers Center in Toronto. Since it has heavy public funds, the public needs to be engaged over the next year or so to make sure it meets the demands of the majority before proceeding.
suburbia
Aug 18, 2015, 11:22 PM
Have you looked at the existing West Village ARP? Long term plan would see a multi-use area with as much as 13 thousand residents and 9000 jobs. (A bit high I think - but even at half that - it's a respectable amount)
http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgary.ca%2fPDA%2fpd%2fDocuments%2fPublications%2fwest-village-arp.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1
I have actually, and was involved for a particular project in that plan some years back.
My point was about this specific project and being able to integrate within its specific contexts. There is only so much north / south width there.
The ARP would of course be back to the drawing board were this project to be approved.
polishavenger
Aug 18, 2015, 11:23 PM
30 000 seating for the stadium is pathetic. Needs to be 40 in my opinion, and expandable to 50 for special events. Anything less is a waste of money.
What semi regular event draws more than 30,000 people? When was the last time the stamps sold out a game? You'd have a similar situation to what you see in BC, a whole lot of empty seats.
The Fisher Account
Aug 18, 2015, 11:29 PM
What semi regular event draws more than 30,000 people? When was the last time the stamps sold out a game? You'd have a similar situation to what you see in BC, a whole lot of empty seats.
Stamps don't sell out because they play in a dump and it's cold out and Calgarians like me are wusses
RyLucky
Aug 18, 2015, 11:33 PM
Where is succeeds:
-stadium aesthetics
-community integration, very multimodal, no surface wasted on parking
Where it fails:
-wastes an opportunity to realign Bow Trail (the greatest possible public benefit for the area)
-West Village will not succeed as a viable community with such a small and isolated portion of the land devoted to residential.
-Capacity change is only appreciable to boxes, making pro-sports less accessible and more financially viable for ownership group in Calgary ESPECIALLY when we have two perfectly good stadiums with a similar magnitude of capacity.
-In light of the first three points, the ownership group ought to pay a far higher proportion of the cost; less from Calgarians
All and all, the "vision" seems a little out of touch, but a good start.
Fuzz
Aug 18, 2015, 11:47 PM
I look at one of the problems with the residential portion on the west side. It's going to end up fairly isolated between the river, Crowchild, the complex, 14th st, CPR, LRT, Bow Trail...lots of barriers.
SloMo
Aug 19, 2015, 12:10 AM
They always throw in a "Hotel" when they make grandiose plans like these, as though the hotel is a minor expenditure or afterthought. Any hotelier wanting to build here better do their homework.
YYCguys
Aug 19, 2015, 12:16 AM
Did KK and his cronies just plunk down the complex into the land, assuming that the City would just leave Bow Trail as it currently exists? That's what it seems to me! I like the idea proposed by another forumer to bury the westbound section of Bow Trail and perhaps connect it to parking underneath the complex. Another idea would be to elevate /bury westbound BT over/under eastbound BT so that it is kept away from the riverfront.
PPAR
Aug 19, 2015, 12:32 AM
I look at one of the problems with the residential portion on the west side. It's going to end up fairly isolated between the river, Crowchild, the complex, 14th st, CPR, LRT, Bow Trail...lots of barriers.
Totally agree with this: The area to the west of the arena becomes an isolated island surrounded by freeway on three sides and the wall of a stadium/ Fieldhouse. Renfrew Crysler will be the back lot for the facility.
YYCguys
Aug 19, 2015, 12:37 AM
In terms of repurposing the Dome, I think it's been mentioned on this forum before that it would make a great water park/mini golf/indoor Zen garden/entertainment centre, and I totally agree! Maybe some restaurants and maybe even some hotel rooms overlooking the water park?
PPAR
Aug 19, 2015, 12:52 AM
Conceptually this project is a good fit. The location makes sense with both decent road and transit access. It is also walkable from the city core. However access will need to be refined, I cannot see 50 000 fans exiting that site smoothly without significant road and rail improvements. However we should remember that the alternative would be Greenfield development on the outskirts.
I am also a big fan of the concentration of activities. One of the big problems with sports venues is the huge amount of space they require for what is ultimately pretty sporadic activity. This design will result in four season usage with day and evening activity. The plan should be refined to further encourage activities such as cardiac rehab programs and community services to locate there.
The design MUST be aesthetically outstanding. It will be an important face of Calgary, visible from downtown, and along the precious Bow River. Cost cutting pressures will be strong, but could ultimately doom the project's success.
O-tacular
Aug 19, 2015, 1:11 AM
http://calgarynext.com/
The website is up
I will say there is a ton of potential here to make this something awesome and transform the core of the City
The video on the website is just terrible. "Are we ready to leave a legacy, be visionary, be world class....???" It guilts the viewer into wanting to give their money to this group of billionaires or be backwards and unimaginative hicks. "C'mon guys... All the other big cities are doing it."
Insulting.
McMurph
Aug 19, 2015, 1:12 AM
I expected a lot more from Ken King and the ownership group. This is a pretty pathetic opening to what will be years of back and forth with the city and province. We waited years for a conceptual plan and massing diagram that someone on this forum could have knocked off in an afternoon.
I like the basic idea. I think 30000 for the football / soccer(!) stadium is exactly right, if expandable to 50000 for special events. I like the location. But the lack of any real design or attention to either neighbourhood structure or river / roadway design is galling. Seriously, hire a professional before you make an announcement like that, Ken. And maybe hire someone other than Ken to do the talking.
O-tacular
Aug 19, 2015, 1:15 AM
calgarynext.com
Inside Arena
http://calgarynext.com/img/Arena-Event-Centre.png
Am I seeing this correctly or is there basically only a lower bowl for regular seats and the rest is corporate boxes? If so that is a massive downgrade for normal fans which basically only enriches the team owners. No thank you!
The Fisher Account
Aug 19, 2015, 1:15 AM
Am I seeing this correctly or is there basically only a lower bowl for regular seats and the rest is corporate boxes? If so that is a massive downgrade for normal fans which basically only enriches the team owners. No thank you!
I don't think final designs for the stadium or arena are complete. These are just placeholder concepts (I believe)
The Fisher Account
Aug 19, 2015, 1:17 AM
In terms of repurposing the Dome, I think it's been mentioned on this forum before that it would make a great water park/mini golf/indoor Zen garden/entertainment centre, and I totally agree! Maybe some restaurants and maybe even some hotel rooms overlooking the water park?
I like the idea of a water park. Having that would really give you no excuse to drive to Edmonton :tup:
CorporateWhore
Aug 19, 2015, 1:23 AM
I don't think final designs for the stadium or arena are complete. These are just placeholder concepts (I believe)
While I don't think anyone was expecting final designs, you'd think they at least be able to show something that doesn't look like it was done in Sketchup.
Despite the hyperbole beforehand, this project overall shows a lack of ambition to me. They talk about it being transformative, yet everything they've shown is rather lacklustre and somewhat poorly thought out. Quite a contrast to the East Village conceptual videos and renderings...those didn't have final details either, but they stirred the blood!
ByeByeBaby
Aug 19, 2015, 1:27 AM
In terms of repurposing the Dome, I think it's been mentioned on this forum before that it would make a great water park/mini golf/indoor Zen garden/entertainment centre, and I totally agree! Maybe some restaurants and maybe even some hotel rooms overlooking the water park?
The primary use to repurpose the Saddledome to me would be to roughly cut it in half to create a large concert / performance venue; obviously you could improve the sightlines, acoustics, structure etc. to support a dedicated concert/performance use. Right now, we have the Mac Hall ballroom and Jack Singer at 1800 each, then the Jube around 2500, then basically nothing until you hit hockey arena sized, with the possible exception of the Corral around 6000 - which is a total dump only really serviceable for concerts where acoustics aren't important, like Megadeth or the Wiggles. We have a huge gap in the ~5000 seat range that a half-Dome could be used for.
PPAR
Aug 19, 2015, 1:52 AM
The renderings seem to suggest that there will be boxes with viewing into both the arena and the stadium. Those will go in annual subscription to the Corporate big boys for amounts that ownership could only dream of previously.
That alone is probably worth half their $200 million investment.
craner
Aug 19, 2015, 2:24 AM
I too am underwhelmed and was expecting a design that was at least a little further developed.
Having said that, at least it's a starting point and I think the concept does have potential.
Depending on who is fronting the CRL and Ticket Tax costs, I was expecting more of the financial pie to be shouldered by Flames ownership.
Guess I'll settle in for about the next 3 years to see how everything shakes out.
RyLucky
Aug 19, 2015, 3:03 AM
How to make me like this project:
1) Increase hockey stadium capacity to 25000.
2) Have the city contribute nothing but the land, tax breaks, road&utilities realignment, pedestrian upgrades, parkspace, ctrain, reclamation, and things of that like. This will amount to hundreds of millions. The owners can pay for the rest, whether a fee is added on tickets or not.
3) Better connect future residents. Cross the River at 19th St. Cross the CPR at 17th St. Realign Bow Trail so it only divides the community once instead of twice. Leave no block without at least some residential units to make a continuous neighbourhood.
4) Emphasize improvements to the river park systems and mixed use paths.
H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 19, 2015, 3:13 AM
How to make me like this project:
1) Increase hockey stadium capacity to 25000.
2) Have the city contribute nothing but the land, tax breaks, road&utilities realignment, pedestrian upgrades, parkspace, ctrain, reclamation, and things of that like. This will amount to hundreds of millions. The owners can pay for the rest, whether a fee is added on tickets or not.
3) Better connect future residents. Cross the River at 19th St. Cross the CPR at 17th St. Realign Bow Trail so it only divides the community once instead of twice. Leave no block without at least some residential units to make a continuous neighbourhood.
4) Emphasize improvements to the river park systems and mixed use paths.
This is a big concern of mine - the plan as they have laid out really cuts off the West Village development from the rest of downtown.. I don't see much of a fluid connection, and the new arena/fieldhouse is a roadblock between the two
The Fisher Account
Aug 19, 2015, 3:37 AM
How to make me like this project:
1) Increase hockey stadium capacity to 25000.
Ridiculous. Show me one economic model that makes sense to justify having the largest hockey arena in the world.
WaitWhat?
Aug 19, 2015, 3:47 AM
Ridiculous. Show me one economic model that makes sense to justify having the largest hockey arena in the world.
Agreed. Construction costs increase exponentially as you get bigger and all you're adding are $15 nosebleed seats. 19,000 capacity is about right for Calgary.
B-side
Aug 19, 2015, 3:48 AM
In his presentation, Ken King mentioned that the river shadowing bylaws were designed for human enjoyment/impact rather than to protect fish habitat. Can anyone confirm this? I was under the impression it was to protect the fish habitat.
O-tacular
Aug 19, 2015, 3:52 AM
I still can't get over how tone deaf the Flames ownership is. It's been said loud and clear that the public is not interested in funding their arena and the city has no tax dollars to spend. Throwing in a field house and disguising public money in the form of levies isn't fooling anyone. In a way I almost feel bad for KK as I feel he is being pushed by the likes of Murray Edwards and the rest to 'get creative' and try to sell the city and the public on funding this thing. They saw their billionaire buddy Darryl Katz get away with it so they want the same thing.
polishavenger
Aug 19, 2015, 4:03 AM
Stamps don't sell out because they play in a dump and it's cold out and Calgarians like me are wusses
wrong, I was at the Alouettes game, perfect football weather day, and despite what the official attendance may say, 1/3 of the seats were empty the entire game.
polishavenger
Aug 19, 2015, 4:06 AM
Has anyone discussed the possibility of what happens when a flames game and a stamps game overlap? I can imagine this set up being able to handle 50k people coming and going.
It would be rare, but what a fail it would be.
milomilo
Aug 19, 2015, 4:06 AM
I still can't get over how tone deaf the Flames ownership is. It's been said loud and clear that the public is not interested in funding their arena and the city has no tax dollars to spend. Throwing in a field house and disguising public money in the form of levies isn't fooling anyone. In a way I almost feel bad for KK as I feel he is being pushed by the likes of Murray Edwards and the rest to 'get creative' and try to sell the city and the public on funding this thing. They saw their billionaire buddy Darryl Katz get away with it so they want the same thing.
I can't say I'm surprised that a sports team is trying to squeeze as much money as they can from the general tax base. If the city doesn't give in to their demands I also expect a PR campaign from them to make it look like the city are the bad guys and don't care about sport or similar BS.
Honestly I could take or leave this proposal. Well actually I don't want anything to go ahead that doesn't reconfigure the road network, and I have no interest in subsidising the Flames. Still though it's interesting to finally see some movement.
trueviking
Aug 19, 2015, 4:15 AM
football in a convention centre.
welcome to 'world-class' multi-purpose stadium circa 1986.
neighbourhood killer not catalyst.
Calgary deserves better than this.
build a $500m arena for the flames and a proper $250m open air stadium and $80m field house somewhere else.
nick.flood
Aug 19, 2015, 4:16 AM
delete
unibrain
Aug 19, 2015, 4:26 AM
In case anyone missed the press conference.. here it is in its entirety:
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-flames-announce-plans-for-state-of-the-art-sports-arena-1.2521605
Beazley66
Aug 19, 2015, 4:49 AM
Ridiculous. Show me one economic model that makes sense to justify having the largest hockey arena in the world.
Are you from Calgary? Just wondering. I'm not. The Bell centre is around 21k and change, and it is almost always sold out. Not sure what benchmark economic model you are working off, but the fan base here kicks . Show me what you can project , accurately, 3-5 years down the road. Show me, and I'll run it by a third party.
Wooster
Aug 19, 2015, 5:00 AM
After thinking about it much of the day after attending the announcement, here are my thoughts from my tiny brain on what we saw today:
Stadium and Arena
As a citizen and a Flames season ticket holder, I would like to see a new facility within the next ten years. I think there is benefit and there is a case to be made. Similarly on the stadium side, I think there is a rationale to replace McMahon and there is synergy in combining a field house function with a stadium.
Having the capacity of the dome roughly the same or slightly less as stated by Ken King makes sense. Making it larger is not the point.
The stadium capacity of 30,000 expandable to accommodate a grey cup or other larger events makes sense to me. I don't mind it being fully enclosed as long as the roof is translucent. The only thing worse than being outside on a freezing cold day is being inside without sunlight on a nice sunny warm day. Combining the stadium with the field house function makes sense to me and there is justification for public spending for this component (more on this below).
Overall District Design
This is where I start to have issues
First, the real point of having an arena or stadium "district" like this is to use the activity of the sporting facility to spin off other complementary uses that create a destination and gathering place in the city. KK said he didn't want a 17th avenue type thing, that's fine, but this seems to lack any sort of real place associated with the stadium and arena.
The main entry point is via Sunalta LRT station. It seems to just take people directly from the platform, onto a bridge and right inside to the stadium/arena. The thing that gets me excited about places like LA Live or Edmonton Arena district is that there is a sense of arrival in a vibrant public square with restaurants and bars and an exciting vibe. There is none of this here.
The arena/and stadium itself the way it's situated and the fact that Bow Trail is not realigned at all makes the facility isolated and isolating. The residential/commercial and other associated development is almost completely detached from the stadium/arena itself. It's completely unclear how people living in this area could even access the Sunalta LRT - there is no apparent way to actually cross Bow Trail!
The site's greatest asset, the Bow River frontage is still largely cut off and orphaned by virtue of a freeway style road that is west-bound Bow Trail. Despite cost, it is a massive mistake to leave the road configuration how it currently is. Ken King himself called it less than ideal. It is far worse than that, it's brutal. The site also sort of orphans the south side of 9th Avenue, leaving a difficult to develop roughly 60ft deep parcel along the whole stretch. If a CRL is used, they will need to squeeze every inch of developable land (and likely more) to make it pencil out financially (more on this below).
The presentation through the renderings was also terribly poor quality. I was almost certain the image that leaked last night must be a hoax. Even someone with fairly basic photoshop skills could do a better job. Perspectives are wrong, shadows are wrong, you have condo buildings touching the LRT guideway, etc. They've had 6 years - and understanding this is conceptual, they still should have had a more professional rendering.
Funding Proposal
This is where things get even tougher
$200 million cash from the owners
Quite simply, not enough in my opinion. This is an $890 million project not counting remediation. Less than 1/4 of the facility cost, and (far) less than 1/5 the overall project cost. We know the ownership group CAN afford to pay more, they just don't WANT to.
$240 million CRL
As it's been talked about before, expecting to pay back a $240 million loan through new tax revenue in this area is tough with the entire area developing out with taxable high density uses. It's made much more challenging when roughly half the land is taken up by much lower tax paying (or no tax paying uses) like a stadium/arena (the Saddledome pays on a non-market assessment of $80 million, is also exempt from business tax and provincial portion of the property tax I believe - I could be a bit off there based on my recollection - but it does not pay full freight property tax for sure.).
Also, Ken King's explanation of how a CRL works wasn't quite correct. The way it works is that you draw a boundary around an area. The existing tax base continues to flow to general City (and Provincial revenue). The notion is development couldn't occur but for public investment to enable it. It usually has to meet a definition of "blight" (East Village easily met this definition). The new tax revenue from development that couldn't otherwise occur goes to pay back the loan. The secret not many people know is that the Province also forgoes its portion of the education property tax that the City transfers to the Province.
The issue is that we are not for example competing against other jurisdictions for this kind of urban development in and around the core. There is fairly finite demand for high density residential development in and around downtown. For every building built here it means likely one less built in say the Beltline, Eau Claire (where the revenue would flow to general revenue), or worse East Village, where it is still a long way from finished and we still are exposed to debt risk as taxpayers. It may induce some demand that would otherwise not occur, but what it really does is increase the land supply of urban redevelopment sites where we currently do not lack land supply - it disperses roughly the same demand over more land area and an additional community. Without West Village, we could likely go 30 years without even coming close to running out of sites for high rise residential, hotel or office space in and around downtown. Further, in a CRL the risk is entirely the City's and taxpayer's.
Ticket Tax
It was a massive mistake in my opinion to not suggest the owners were going to backstop the loan for the ticket tax. I suppose we would assume the City would finance the ticket tax. I believe the user pay component is sound, it should absolutely be backstopped by the owners, not the City. If it is planned to be backstopped by the owners, really bad not to say that today with utmost clarity.
$200 million from City for fieldhouse
I agree there is a strong rationale to combine these facilities so it's used more than 20 days of the year. There is efficiency and synergy as KK pointed out allocating the $200m it had planned for the foothills site and redirect it here.
The challenge it is a priority project for the City, but it is unfunded. The capital funding available for 2015-18 is allocated, and it's unclear where they will fund the source of funding to allocate to this project. If NDP replace MSI with something in 2018 when the current 10 year deal (which payed for WLRT among other things) expires, there is a chance it could go to this project.
City land and facility ownership
I did find it interesting that KK suggested it be a City owned facility and remain City-owned land. The challenge is it's unclear (and seems unlikely) the City would realize any upside from ownership such as concession revenue or parking revenue. Therefore it's all just risk. If the facility has some structural issue, it's on the hook. The City it would seem assumes all the risk.
Environmental Remediation and other infrastructure
This cost is not yet pinned down, but KK suggested it should be a City/Provincial/Federal responsibility. It could be a big cost, it maybe smaller as KK suggested based on their research, but right now is a huge unknown. Again, if it's City ownership, Flames are indemnified and City takes all the risk?
There's seemingly no questions than answers at this point, but here we go - it's good it's finally open for public discussion.
The Fisher Account
Aug 19, 2015, 6:01 AM
Are you from Calgary? Just wondering. I'm not. The Bell centre is around 21k and change, and it is almost always sold out. Not sure what benchmark economic model you are working off, but the fan base here kicks . Show me what you can project , accurately, 3-5 years down the road. Show me, and I'll run it by a third party.
The fan base here kicks!
Well, not really. The fan base here is actually rather fickle. Save for a miraculous and surprising season last year, we would likely have seen a Saddledome trending towards averaging attendance in the sub-18000 area had the Flames actually performed the way everyone thought they would last year (dead last).
Shall I also go into the rate of diminishing returns in expanding 300 level seating compared to focusing on increasing lower bowl and private suite numbers? Supply and demand models? Or again just ask why a city of only 1.3M should have the largest arena in the entire world? Larger than Toronto, New York, LA, Montreal, Chicago... Oh, and 5,000 more seats larger?
Anyone here remember the Save the Flames campaigns and a half empty barn? Let's not get carried away now.
ByeByeBaby
Aug 19, 2015, 6:40 AM
Ridiculous. Show me one economic model that makes sense to justify having the largest hockey arena in the world.
Fun fact: More people watched hockey in the Saddledome during the 2014-2015 season than in any other building in the world (and this is true most seasons).
I mean, it doesn't necessarily justify 25K seats, but it is true.
craner
Aug 19, 2015, 7:06 AM
Very well thought out and written post Wooster. I am in agreement with much of what you say.
Just a couple of items I would like to point out:
1. I don't think fully transluscent roof panels are being proposed. I think some of the renderings looking down on the exterior of the structures have made the roof clear in order to show the interior. The interior renderings and some of the other exterior ones indicate mainly solid roof panels. In either case I worry a fixed roof will kill the atmosphere on game days (many examples of this). Please make the stadium roof retractable (funded by the Flames of course).
2. McMahon Stadium is used for much more than Stampeder football games (i.e. 20 times a year). A host of U of C teams (football, feild hockey, lacrosse, soccer) train/play there. Calgary Colts Jr. Football team, various amateur, school, community, club soccer & football teams play& practice there. In fact through spring , summer & fall it's actually difficult to find an opening in McMahon's schedule to book (I know this from first hand experience).
That's it, I'm done - just wanted to get that out there.
jeffwhit
Aug 19, 2015, 9:01 AM
Going to throw in my two cents as well.
I want this project to happen in this location as a catalyst for environmental remediation of the West Village. I do believe that should be paid for largely by the various levels of government, because even though it happened it a different era, it was lax regulations that allowed a huge swath of central Calgary to become uninhabitable. I think the Flames' need to do their part as well. I think 25% of the cost of remediation is appropriate. Ultimately I'd prefer to spend more public money on this then letting that land sit in its current state for realistically another 40 years.
I think it's exciting to have both major teams downtown. I also think the lack of focus on parking is good. Downtown Calgary contains a large number of parking spaces that are basically empty after 5pm. I would be in favour of adding a transit fee to the ticket cost and running busses from various points downtown to the games, and therefor also allowing fans to hop on the C-train and ride it from their parking spot (anywhere) to Sunalta without having to purchase an additional fair. Spreading out the parking helps alleviate huge traffic concerns.
What is disappointing is that any number of forumers here could have quite literally spent their free time putting together a similar proposal with renderings and a financial model that was more thought out, and done it in a week. What the hell have they been doing for 2 years? As Wooster pointed out the this isn't even half-baked. Lack of road realignment is completely unacceptable. Imagine a combination River Walk/plaza as one of the arrival points, with another one as an arrival point from Sunalta Station. Bow trail should be pushed as close to the CP tracks as possible.
Also, I'd like to see a Varsity Stadium scale facility remain in the same general area as McMahon/Foothills Athletic Park. Something that would require only a tiny fraction of the parking and ensure that the actual availability of such facilities in Calgary actually increases.
Then there's the issues with the funding model, which have been well covered with more expertise by others.
Personally, with all the know-how on this forum, I'd love to see what we could collectively come up with as an alternative proposal.
RyLucky
Aug 19, 2015, 11:08 AM
Ridiculous. Show me one economic model that makes sense to justify having the largest hockey arena in the world.
The Saddledome can hold 19, 289. Why are we even building another?
RyLucky
Aug 19, 2015, 11:29 AM
What is disappointing is that any number of forumers here could have quite literally spent their free time putting together a similar proposal with renderings and a financial model that was more thought out, and done it in a week. What the hell have they been doing for 2 years? As Wooster pointed out the this isn't even half-baked. Lack of road realignment is completely unacceptable. Imagine a combination River Walk/plaza as one of the arrival points, with another one as an arrival point from Sunalta Station. Bow trail should be pushed as close to the CP tracks as possible.
That sums it up. It's like I just heard an Axl Rose comeback album.
CrossedTheTracks
Aug 19, 2015, 12:47 PM
Has anyone discussed the possibility of what happens when a flames game and a stamps game overlap? I can imagine this set up being able to handle 50k people coming and going.
It would be rare, but what a fail it would be.
There's, what, 4-ish home Stamps games Sept-Oct, and 2 possible playoff dates in November, excluding Grey Cup (which, if it were in Calgary, would be known well in advance).
Pretty sure NHL scheduling can avoid 6 days. A much smaller feat than scheduling the Rangers and Knicks into MSG!!!
bt04ku
Aug 19, 2015, 2:04 PM
Pretty sure NHL scheduling can avoid 6 days. A much smaller feat than scheduling the Rangers and Knicks into MSG!!!
Or the Kings, Lakers and Clippers into Staples Center.
bt04ku
Aug 19, 2015, 2:18 PM
The Saddledome can hold 19, 289. Why are we even building another?
Because a new arena designed to maximize revenue is better than an old one, even with the same number (or less) seats. It is why the Saddledome went from 20,240 seats to 19,289 when they put in more luxury suites and club seats.
With TV viewing becoming what it is there is much less benefit in building more and more seats which are far away from ice level, especially when those seats are the most expensive to build and bring in the least revenue. The ~19,000 seat range is also more advantageous with changes in demand better (quicker for ticket prices to go up, slower for them to do down) than trying to push the 20,000 mark. All the new arenas in the past decade have stayed in the 18 or 19,000 seat range, a couple even less. It's just better business.
There is also the issue of the Saddledome not being suitable for a number of major concerts due to its shape, so the 19,289 isn't even adequate to maximize the overall capacity through non-hockey events.
Fuzz
Aug 19, 2015, 2:24 PM
After thinking about it, I'm hopeful this is just a rough idea they have to get the conversation started and they are open to getting a real design process started. Basically, this is what we want to do, but have no idea if it is the best way to do it. They had to release something publicly at this point.
As for the money, I'd hope this is their starting point, not their final goal. Ask big, settle for much less.
RyLucky
Aug 19, 2015, 2:29 PM
Because a new arena designed to maximize revenue is better than an old one, even with the same number (or less) seats.
Better for whom?
Surrealplaces
Aug 19, 2015, 2:41 PM
Agreed. I don't think scheduling will that much of an issue. Even if for some reason there are two events on at the same time...which I suspect would happen now and then given that the arena would probably have hockey games, concerts, Ice Capades etc.. They won't necessarily start or end at the same time. If they do, it's not going to happen very often.
There's, what, 4-ish home Stamps games Sept-Oct, and 2 possible playoff dates in November, excluding Grey Cup (which, if it were in Calgary, would be known well in advance).
Pretty sure NHL scheduling can avoid 6 days. A much smaller feat than scheduling the Rangers and Knicks into MSG!!!
Or the Kings, Lakers and Clippers into Staples Center.
Surrealplaces
Aug 19, 2015, 2:45 PM
30 000 seating for the stadium is pathetic. Needs to be 40 in my opinion, and expandable to 50 for special events. Anything less is a waste of money.
At least 40K. I know that the trend seems to be going to toward smaller stadiums, but 30K just seems to little...even if they can expand it to 50K.
MalcolmTucker
Aug 19, 2015, 2:48 PM
I don't understand why people think the 'ticket tax' amount is coming from the public. The amount from the owners is coming from the public too using a similar justification.
Surrealplaces
Aug 19, 2015, 2:52 PM
I don't understand why people think the 'ticket tax' amount is coming from the public. The amount from the owners is coming from the public too using a similar justification.
Agreed. The ticket tax is one of the things I like most about the proposal, it's a fair set up, and a useful way to help fund the project.
MichaelS
Aug 19, 2015, 2:52 PM
I don't understand why people think the 'ticket tax' amount is coming from the public. The amount from the owners is coming from the public too using a similar justification.
Is the concern the upfront financing of the ticket tax amount? How many years will it take to recover the full ticket tax portion, and who fronts the money before then?
MalcolmTucker
Aug 19, 2015, 3:08 PM
Since it would be a dedicated fee to paying back a loan, 1) If it came from the city, it wouldn't count towards the city debt limit, similar to Enmax debt I believe. 2) Since you have a dedicated revenue stream, the interest rate even on the private market will be ridiculously low.
I don't understand why this seems to be a point of contention when the CRL is the big thing that is up in the air.
Me&You
Aug 19, 2015, 3:14 PM
Better for whom?
Everyone involved. :shrug:
A better designed, modern facility with a more spacious concourse and more amenities is better for the fans that attend the games and the ownership group. What's hard to understand about that?
I suppose you want more seats to make it more "accessible" to more fans? I'm sure if a proper business case could be made, that would be the case. I have no doubt that the ownership / operating group (and all of those involved in spec'ing every new arena in the last 20 or so years) have looked at all of the numbers in every possible way and all came to the same conclusion; the ideal capacity for an arena is 18-19k. Any capacity larger than that requires even more amenities to accommodate more people that are filling lower value seats. Not sure where this isn't making sense...
Denscafon
Aug 19, 2015, 3:43 PM
I might be beating a dead horse by bringing this back up but after seeing the announcement yesterday, I just can't see this really working in West village even more so and Railtown just makes WAY more sense now.
My main issues are:
1)This new development doesn't address the need for realignment of Bow trail/Crowchild and just makes that situation worse. We should be realigning the roads first, then doing remediation, THEN figure out what to build there. Not the other way around.
2)The lack of parking is also a massive concern. Leaving cars at your office is not a solution.
3)Isolating the "future developments" from the rest of Downtown due to being on the other side of this sports complex will just cause havoc for getting in and out of that area and also makes it less desirable to live/work there.
4) The battle of who pays for remediation is not at all addressed by Ken King.
Compare that with Railtown:
1) With the green line being designed right now, you can have the station built right into the sports complex.
2) Even after all the parking is gone, there's parking nearby at stampede for overflow
3) No need to have the stadium issue get involved with the remediation. It still needs to be done no matter what, but throwing in a 3rd party just makes it all the more difficult
Of course railtown has issues as well such as the city not owning the land (could be bought for the purpose of the green line) and relocating the bus depot there but to me those issues can be resolved more easily compared to the hurdles that west village has.
I'm also not thrilled with how Ken King and company want this to be funded. CRL to me is a bit of an accounting smoke screen as in the end, tax payers still pay for it. This can be explained on this link
http://www.taxpayer.com/commentaries/ab--revitalization-levy-sleight-of-hand
If they want our tax dollars other than the field house money, I would say the flames would need to give a share of ticket revenue. Would you invest in something but not get any equity in return? No, and nor should the city let Flames ownership push them to doing that too. Saying that the complex is a City asset is stupid as that means the city is liable for everything then and also are stuck with a useless money sucking asset in 20-30 years just like the saddledome will be soon.
Bigtime
Aug 19, 2015, 3:54 PM
I think the neatest thing about the Railtown lands was the eventual inclusion of high speed rail and the station being pretty much next to it along 9th or 10th avenue. How cool would it be to be able to go up to Edmonton or have their fans able to come down here to watch a game?
The Urbanist
Aug 19, 2015, 3:56 PM
Here's what I like about the proposal:
1) The efficiencies gained through a combined facility.
2) The proposed seating layout for the arena.
That's pretty much it. Here's what I don't understand - once the clean-up is completed, this is a prime riverfront parcel that doesn't require a stadium/arena to activate it. If the government is going to cover the clean-up cost, shouldn't the land be marketed/leased similar to what CMLC is doing in the east village? If this proposal goes through, I hope CMLC has a strong voice regarding how the stadium/arena fits into the West Village. The West Village should not be built around the stadium/arena, but quite the opposite. What happens in 30-40 years from now, when this amenity is too old and needs to be replaced?
Lastly, to allow for a appropriate pedestrian realm, Bow Trail needs to be relocated away from the waterfront. This is a non-starter IMO.
googspecial
Aug 19, 2015, 3:57 PM
I think the neatest thing about the Railtown lands was the eventual inclusion of high speed rail and the station being pretty much next to it along 9th or 10th avenue. How cool would it be to be able to go up to Edmonton or have their fans able to come down here to watch a game?
Well, that's still a possibility if/when HSR ever gets built. Would just have to transfer to the LRT to get to the arena..
artvandelay
Aug 19, 2015, 4:12 PM
Wooster, his is a good, thoughtful analysis (O-Tac and others, please take note) and I largely agree.
The only point where I'd differ is on your take on the funding proposal.
$200 million cash from the owners
Quite simply, not enough in my opinion. This is an $890 million project not counting remediation. Less than 1/4 of the facility cost, and (far) less than 1/5 the overall project cost. We know the ownership group CAN afford to pay more, they just don't WANT to.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation. Regardless of how the ticket levy is financed, the CS&E will be footing the bill for that as well. So the total give from Flames ownership is $450 million or 51% of the total project cost.
$240 million CRL
As it's been talked about before, expecting to pay back a $240 million loan through new tax revenue in this area is tough with the entire area developing out with taxable high density uses. It's made much more challenging when roughly half the land is taken up by much lower tax paying (or no tax paying uses) like a stadium/arena (the Saddledome pays on a non-market assessment of $80 million, is also exempt from business tax and provincial portion of the property tax I believe - I could be a bit off there based on my recollection - but it does not pay full freight property tax for sure.).
Also, Ken King's explanation of how a CRL works wasn't quite correct. The way it works is that you draw a boundary around an area. The existing tax base continues to flow to general City (and Provincial revenue). The notion is development couldn't occur but for public investment to enable it. It usually has to meet a definition of "blight" (East Village easily met this definition). The new tax revenue from development that couldn't otherwise occur goes to pay back the loan. The secret not many people know is that the Province also forgoes its portion of the education property tax that the City transfers to the Province.
There is also an opportunity cost to the City in having that land sit blighted as it is. Also, property tax revenues will be heavily dependent not only on built density in the district but also use, as commercial achieves much higher values than residential. The analysis that needs to be done is a DCF comparing tax receipts under three scenarios: 1) redevelopment with an area complex, 2) redevelopment under the ARP, and 3) status quo. The advantage you have with the Flames' plan is that you have a private investor willing to pour $450 million into the area right off the bat, and that a portion of the planned development will be commercial in use.
The issue is that we are not for example competing against other jurisdictions for this kind of urban development in and around the core. There is fairly finite demand for high density residential development in and around downtown. For every building built here it means likely one less built in say the Beltline, Eau Claire (where the revenue would flow to general revenue), or worse East Village, where it is still a long way from finished and we still are exposed to debt risk as taxpayers. It may induce some demand that would otherwise not occur, but what it really does is increase the land supply of urban redevelopment sites where we currently do not lack land supply - it disperses roughly the same demand over more land area and an additional community. Without West Village, we could likely go 30 years without even coming close to running out of sites for high rise residential, hotel or office space in and around downtown. Further, in a CRL the risk is entirely the City's and taxpayer's.
Agreed. Cannibalization of other development areas is a certainly a concern. Especially the East Village, which is already heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. I agree that there is no shortage of residential development sites in the city centre, but office sites are starting to become scarce in the core. It might make the most sense to develop the West Village as an office node first and foremost.
Ticket Tax
It was a massive mistake in my opinion to not suggest the owners were going to backstop the loan for the ticket tax. I suppose we would assume the City would finance the ticket tax. I believe the user pay component is sound, it should absolutely be backstopped by the owners, not the City. If it is planned to be backstopped by the owners, really bad not to say that today with utmost clarity.
They didn't say how this would be structured, and when asked yesterday King said that it could be commercially financed. Perhaps the City could borrow at the Alberta Capital Finance Authority rate and charge a .50 spread to CS&E? Regardless, the structure of how this ticket levy is financed isn't overly material.
Environmental Remediation and other infrastructure
This cost is not yet pinned down, but KK suggested it should be a City/Provincial/Federal responsibility. It could be a big cost, it maybe smaller as KK suggested based on their research, but right now is a huge unknown. Again, if it's City ownership, Flames are indemnified and City takes all the risk?
As stated before, remediation should be viewed as a sunk cost. It's something that needs to happen whether a stadium occupies the site, it's developed according to the ARP, or it continues to be occupied by car dealerships. It's absolutely ridiculous in my mind that Domtar cannot be held liable for the cleanup of the site, but so be it.
izend
Aug 19, 2015, 4:14 PM
Here's what I like about the proposal:
1) The efficiencies gained through a combined facility.
2) The proposed seating layout for the arena.
That's pretty much it. Here's what I don't understand - once the clean-up is completed, this is a prime riverfront parcel that doesn't require a stadium/arena to activate it. If the government is going to cover the clean-up cost, shouldn't the land be marketed/leased similar to what CMLC is doing in the east village? If this proposal goes through, I hope CMLC has a strong voice regarding how the stadium/arena fits into the West Village. The West Village should not be built around the stadium/arena, but quite the opposite. What happens in 30-40 years from now, when this amenity is too old and needs to be replaced?
Lastly, to allow for a appropriate pedestrian realm, Bow Trail needs to be relocated away from the waterfront. This is a non-starter IMO.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was thought I had read that the clean up requirements for residential vs commercial construction are different with residential being more strict?
artvandelay
Aug 19, 2015, 4:25 PM
Compare that with Railtown:
1) With the green line being designed right now, you can have the station built right into the sports complex.
2) Even after all the parking is gone, there's parking nearby at stampede for overflow
3) No need to have the stadium issue get involved with the remediation. It still needs to be done no matter what, but throwing in a 3rd party just makes it all the more difficult
Of course railtown has issues as well such as the city not owning the land (could be bought for the purpose of the green line) and relocating the bus depot there but to me those issues can be resolved more easily compared to the hurdles that west village has.
Railtown is not feasible for a number of reasons.
1) The land is privately held by Remington, zoned, and readily developable. The West Village land is worthless and a liability. Add $60-$100 million in land acquisition cost to the project right off the bat.
2)In order to fit a stadium/fieldhouse on the site, you need to build over the tracks. CP has said many times that they will not allow this. So unless you throw a boatload of cash at CP, it's likely not happening.
3)After jamming an arena and stadium on the site, there will be little land left over for supporting amenities and development to subsidize the rest of the complex.
The Urbanist
Aug 19, 2015, 4:25 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was thought I had read that the clean up requirements for residential vs commercial construction are different with residential being more strict?
You are correct, but this proposal has a residential component.
GreenSPACE
Aug 19, 2015, 4:34 PM
This sounds pretty much like the deal we ended up with in Edmonton. Neither perfect nor entirely terrible.
nick.flood
Aug 19, 2015, 4:38 PM
delete
Denscafon
Aug 19, 2015, 4:45 PM
A quick set of the facility on the Railtown lands. Tight but not impossible.
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb15/smashcard/Construction/railtownmap_zpskt3gglkx.jpg
Demolish the bus depot and you got even more space to work with. But ya, even without demolishing it, could work out if u tweak the design a bit. Or you could just reroute the train tracks closer to the edge there for a section to get more width.
nick.flood
Aug 19, 2015, 4:51 PM
delete
WhipperSnapper
Aug 19, 2015, 4:54 PM
Seeing this vision makes me realize that the West Village may not be the best location. The design of the fieldhouse is clearly compromised to fit within the shadowing policy.
MalcolmTucker
Aug 19, 2015, 4:55 PM
So with this:
http://i.imgur.com/iMlqQZ4.png
Source: http://www.realestateforums.com/ref/old/calgaryref/docs/2010/b4_matthias_tita.pdf
And this:
http://i.imgur.com/FIBUfJ5.png
Source: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/west-village-arp.pdf
And this: http://calgarynext.com/img/content/location-future.jpg
Source: http://calgarynext.com/location.php
It looks like you only miss out on the Promenade Precinct for redevelopment potential.
I don't think one should mistake the '750 residences' as part of the proposal as a limit, it likely refers to somewhat directly related development to the Next building.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.