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

Denscafon
Aug 19, 2015, 5:12 PM
The big issue is that the promenade district is what connects the other 2 districts together to become an actual neighborhood. Having an arena right in the middle completely segregates the 2 other districts. The promenade district is supposed to be a "pedestrian focused" area and a sports complex would not do the same thing.

Fuzz
Aug 19, 2015, 5:22 PM
Rerouting Bow and putting the stadium on the west "Pumphouse precinct" seams to make a lot more sense to me. Then anyone coming for downtown walks through the commercial district. The only drawback is not having direct LRT access, but it would also force everyone to walk pas the shops.

artvandelay
Aug 19, 2015, 5:29 PM
Rerouting Bow and putting the stadium on the west "Pumphouse precinct" seams to make a lot more sense to me. Then anyone coming for downtown walks through the commercial district. The only drawback is not having direct LRT access, but it would also force everyone to walk pas the shops.

I think this may be the way to go. Creosote contamination is concentrated in that area, so it might make more sense to place the stadium complex there as residential remediation costs will likely be higher.

The trade-off is a longer walk from the stadium to LRT and occupying a large section of riverfront with a monolithic complex.

monocle
Aug 19, 2015, 5:42 PM
A big thanks to everyone with their insights. The overlays are especially useful to my understanding of this, granted I'm a rank amateur in planning issues.

I'd bet money that the final product will incorporate Bow trail being fixed...whether it is a re-route through the project (like Vancouver) or whatever else (maybe demo all of the spaghetti and try again, with more river front developable land as the end result?)

Again, thanks guys, really appreciate the nuance.

lubicon
Aug 19, 2015, 6:02 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

Since 1998 the Stamps have averaged close to or over 30 000 every year. Any game you go to most of the people are sitting between the 20 yard lines or goal lines at most, especially the higher you go. Depending on how the seating is set up (bowl seating for example, that surroudns the entire field) I would bet you draw way fewer people as the perception of those end zone seats is less desireable. I still say you need to look at a capacity of closer to 40 than 30, and the city has proven recently that it can support that.

https://stats.cfldb.ca/team/calgary-stampeders/

Fuzz
Aug 19, 2015, 6:12 PM
Druh's thoughts.....
http://www.calgary.ca/councillors/ward-7/Pages/News/Blog----Is-CalgaryNEXT-a-good-idea.aspx

H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 19, 2015, 6:14 PM
Rerouting Bow and putting the stadium on the west "Pumphouse precinct" seams to make a lot more sense to me. Then anyone coming for downtown walks through the commercial district. The only drawback is not having direct LRT access, but it would also force everyone to walk pas the shops.

I think this may be the way to go. Creosote contamination is concentrated in that area, so it might make more sense to place the stadium complex there as residential remediation costs will likely be higher.

The trade-off is a longer walk from the stadium to LRT and occupying a large section of riverfront with a monolithic complex.

I like this option as well personally .. The disconnect from having the complex in the Promenade area combined with leaving Bow Tr as is would make this project a fail.

If there is any public money going towards this, I'd be most satisfied if it's going to do the area properly including re-routing Bow Trail, making the WV flow naturally and well connected, and even fixing Crowchild/Bow Tr (might as well go big). While it is a downside to have some waterfront occupied by this complex (which would be a quiet area when events aren't there) it's better to have it on the outside of the core (there isn't much west of there anyway) rather than the middle. They could still do some nice riverfront work that connects it to the bike paths going west.

Fuzz
Aug 19, 2015, 6:22 PM
I find it rather sneaky how they say combining these facilities would optimize costs, yet they still ask for the full $200 million the city has said a field house would cost, built on its own. Shouldn't some of the savings go towards reducing the field house ask?

Surrealplaces
Aug 19, 2015, 6:34 PM
Yup, it should be a no-brainer that the owners would backstop the financing upfront for the ticket tax.


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.

PPAR
Aug 19, 2015, 6:51 PM
I find it rather sneaky how they say combining these facilities would optimize costs, yet they still ask for the full $200 million the city has said a field house would cost, built on its own. Shouldn't some of the savings go towards reducing the field house ask?

Lipstick on a Pig... The reality is North American professional sport is built on a model that requires tax dollars to operate in any market. Given that the costs of venues are similar regardless of the size of the city, smaller market teams are always going to be challenged. We are kidding ourselves if we think an agreement can be reached on a new arena project without the city and province stepping forward in some form. A "no tax dollars" approach will ultimately lead to the Flames exiting Calgary. The real question is how to sell a tax contribution politically, and what is the real taxpayer minimum cost.

The ticket tax is probably the best funding suggestion here. It is user pay, and will indirectly be taking money that otherwise could support higher ticket prices and therefore profitability for the owners.

s4.audios
Aug 19, 2015, 6:52 PM
I hope that design changes a lot, that thing is butt ugly... then again so was the first conceptual drawings of Rogers Place.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 19, 2015, 6:53 PM
^ I don't think who loans the money for the ticket tax will be a problem. More of a who cares, lets move on to the real points of contention in the give and take on this. The loan is backstopped by a direct revenue source so it will approach government interest rates even if done on a purely commercial basis.

In the end it is probably better to bundle it with the CRL and use it to revenue smooth the loans so that the CRL doesn't accumulate additional debt beyond the original capital spend based on the development lag, but that doesn't mean it has to be.

641,223 fans a year if you add current Rexall Place numbers (which mind you are way higher than the Saddledome's numbers), and current Stampeders attendance. A $20 ticket tax would cover a 30 year amortization.

Bokimon
Aug 19, 2015, 7:03 PM
I did a quick research at the ownership and its safe to say their combined net worth can probably finance a couple of these projects. Two of them being founder/executives of CNRL it leads me to believe that the Flames/Stampeders (who btw are under the same ownership group) I believe it seems, our main sports teams are owned and run by CNRL. Yeah its ridiculous statement but so is when the owners of our beloved teams are
out of touch dinosaurs who only care about money. Their archaic approach to catering for a thriving 21st city with a booming young entrepreneurial population shows in their lack of quality or foresight of their presentation even for a conceptual design. Lazy IMO.
Compare it to the CMLC who have youth and energy fueling ideas of pure awesomeness that resonates so very well with our current multifaceted demographics of the city. It's like night and day! Their presentations on the EV was so comprehensive, it certainly stirred up some good blood, good vibe and good consensus support!
If the Flames/Stamps ownerships had some younger blood in it, this project would come out much much different. Let me know if there is a opening in the future! :)

These rich folks over the past what 8 years were likely not interested in doing actual research work but instead played around to improving their golf handicaps and stock dividends. I wouldn't be surprised if this was only conjured up over the last month lol!
This project better be consulted with the city and the citizens alike during its detailed design stage or so help me god, I hope the city crucifies this if they dare to go into DP as it is. At least I'd be happy knowing the city is taking ownership funds thru their permit fees and what not.

Perhaps these folks need an email spamming with this thread linked so they can at least start opening their eyes a bit and put down their monocles. For starters they should visit LA, Edmonton, San Diego, even Seattle! Those cities have their entertainment and sporting DISTRICTS done right where it is a true destination for live, work, and play for not just the immediate area, but for the entire city as well with efficient amenities and good infrastructure support.

Awesome feedback folks, I agree with majority of the pointers that has been posted. I believe that SSP nerdlings here are the armchair building /urban planners and design review panel that the actual city planning commission/UDRP only dreams of!
Cut the greed and start giving back to the community for god's sake! Real philanthropists do not mooch on public money for important vision making projects.

MichaelS
Aug 19, 2015, 7:08 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

So how is this for an idea. Move the bus barns to the West Village, and build the stadium where they currently sit.

I have had several Calgary Transit employees tell me the City will never relocate the Victoria Park bus barns, because to build a new one on the edge of the city would cost millions every year in unnecessary salary to drivers who are dead-heading. This issue is resolved by locating the barns still very central on already city owned land.

Would the remediation cost of the west lands go down significantly if we were just putting bus barns on it (not much different than the current car dealerships)?

The Calgary Stampede can still proceed forward with their redevelopment vision, knowing they still have a large anchor with the Flames. The current proposal seems to be jeopardizing that vision:
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/flames-aspirations-were-just-too-big-for-stampede-park-to-accommodate

The proximity of the new Arena would benefit further redevelopment of our already large investment in East Village, and may spur more development in Victoria Park.

Downside is, much more challenging vehicular access, but no different really than the current Saddledome.

izend
Aug 19, 2015, 7:21 PM
"Calgary’s city council secretly approved the $36.9-million purchase of contaminated land — now being pitched as part of the site for a new downtown arena and stadium complex — despite expert reports that warned the extent of the pollution and potential cleanup costs needed further investigation."

Can't believe the city throw away $37 million to buy this worthless land.

Fuzz
Aug 19, 2015, 7:24 PM
^
If they are going to move the bus barns, they should move them to Firepark, not West Village. I hear Firepark is an awesome connected area close to the core, ripe for alternative uses.

artvandelay
Aug 19, 2015, 7:36 PM
I did a quick research at the ownership and its safe to say their combined net worth can probably finance a couple of these projects. Two of them being founder/executives of CNRL it leads me to believe that the Flames/Stampeders (who btw are under the same ownership group) I believe it seems, our main sports teams are owned and run by CNRL. Yeah its ridiculous statement but so is when the owners of our beloved teams are
out of touch dinosaurs who only care about money. Their archaic approach to catering for a thriving 21st city with a booming young entrepreneurial population shows in their lack of quality or foresight of their presentation even for a conceptual design. Lazy IMO.
Compare it to the CMLC who have youth and energy fueling ideas of pure awesomeness that resonates so very well with our current multifaceted demographics of the city. It's like night and day! Their presentations on the EV was so comprehensive, it certainly stirred up some good blood, good vibe and good consensus support!
If the Flames/Stamps ownerships had some younger blood in it, this project would come out much much different. Let me know if there is a opening in the future! :)

These rich folks over the past what 8 years were likely not interested in doing actual research work but instead played around to improving their golf handicaps and stock dividends. I wouldn't be surprised if this was only conjured up over the last month lol!
This project better be consulted with the city and the citizens alike during its detailed design stage or so help me god, I hope the city crucifies this if they dare to go into DP as it is. At least I'd be happy knowing the city is taking ownership funds thru their permit fees and what not.

Perhaps these folks need an email spamming with this thread linked so they can at least start opening their eyes a bit and put down their monocles. For starters they should visit LA, Edmonton, San Diego, even Seattle! Those cities have their entertainment and sporting DISTRICTS done right where it is a true destination for live, work, and play for not just the immediate area, but for the entire city as well with efficient amenities and good infrastructure support.

Awesome feedback folks, I agree with majority of the pointers that has been posted. I believe that SSP nerdlings here are the armchair building /urban planners and design review panel that the actual city planning commission/UDRP only dreams of!
Cut the greed and start giving back to the community for god's sake! Real philanthropists do not mooch on public money for important vision making projects.

What a terrible post this is. This simplistic nonsense adds nothing to the conversation and detracts from the discussion we are having.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 19, 2015, 7:39 PM
I bet those greedy suburbanites in the SE and North have a net-worth much higher than the cost of the Green Line LRT. Many if not most of the households are millionaires!

By not pooling their money and building this asset they are just out of touch dinosaurs who only care about money.

RyLucky
Aug 19, 2015, 7:49 PM
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...

Let's be clear. A new stadium of the same size is better for the owners.

Current annual operating income for the owners: $23 M.
Future operating income with more boxes: I'm not even going to guess, but the owners must think the difference in revenue is worth a one time $200M payment. The Leafs profit $71M/year, but benefit from a much bigger market, so who knows. BTW, the ACC has 152 luxury seats compared the the Dome's 72. The Staples Ctr has 160. Edmonton will have 144.

Would the new stadium be better for the fans? The two biggest factors that determine the enjoyment fans will get are how often they go (determined by price and ticket scarcity) and whether the team wins. The next factor after that is probably how easy or difficult it is to get to. Shorter bathroom lineups and a more spacious concourse are hardly worth hundreds of millions.

This new deal increases the cost to fans (reduction to general seating capacity, more boxes, presumably more expensive parking, and ticket "tax"), has only a marginal improvement in access to transit and probably worse vehicle/parking access, and will have zero effect on the team itself (obviously). For fans, this is an expensive "nice-to-have". We should not make decisions based on people who share the following opinions:

"The government should buy us a $500M new stadium seeing as they're spending all that money (<$10M) on bike lanes anyway."
"Ticket tax?! There goes the government trying to get my money in another way!"
"If you combined all the charitable donations the Flames Foundation and the owners have made over the years, they could have funded a new NHL rink."
"Nothing good is easy but doing nothing is really easy." (or any such idiotic idiom)
"We’re not going to let the dollar signs get in the way of us doing nothing."
"Edmonton got theirs."
"Sunalta LRT was dumb luck."


Are there real public benefits? Certainly, but the "vision" I see presented is one that benefits the owners, provides a qualitative benefit to fans at a high cost, and is not worth half a billion public dollars (not counting creosote clean up, connectivity, etc) considering it comes spectacularly short of solving the problems related to that parcel of land. The trouble is that whoever came up with this plan is about 30 years behind contemporary urban planning and sociology, and (most unforgivable of all) ignorant to decades of west village consultation and planning. If taxpayers were playing less of the bill, I'd probably be more lenient in my criticisms. Hell, if they pay for the whole thing, they can put it in Firepark for all I care.

The public would probably get more benefit from renovating Foothills Athletic Park ($20M), North Glenmore ($20M), and spending $300-400M realigning roads and parkspaces and a CRL in the West Village so that the entire parcel could be developed as taxable assets.

Could something be worked out? Yes, but this isn't it.

A big thanks to everyone with their insights. The overlays are especially useful to my understanding of this, granted I'm a rank amateur in planning issues.

I'd bet money that the final product will incorporate Bow trail being fixed...whether it is a re-route through the project (like Vancouver) or whatever else (maybe demo all of the spaghetti and try again, with more river front developable land as the end result?)

Again, thanks guys, really appreciate the nuance.

I'd like to thank everyone too. This is the sort of topic that has me glued to SSP, a beacon of rational discourse in an ocean of apathy (ie. the real world).

craner
Aug 19, 2015, 8:01 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.

I think you've pretty much nailed it here Fuzz - this is a "concept" of a idea.
If the desire is to relocate, bury, stack Bow Trail (as one example) then that can still be looked at and accommodated. Judging by the renders the actual "design" of the complex has not yet begun.
Very, very, very, very early days.

Bigtime
Aug 19, 2015, 8:06 PM
We could have been given the "concept" 2 years ago, for all that waiting I was expecting more on the detail side of things.

artvandelay
Aug 19, 2015, 8:10 PM
We could have been given the "concept" 2 years ago, for all that waiting I was expecting more on the detail side of things.

By all accounts, plans went back to square one upon acquisition of the Stampeders in late 2012. Identifying a site suitable for both facilities and working out details behind the scenes would've taken a fair amount of time. There's no point in getting into detailed design before building consensus on a location and funding plan.

Cage
Aug 19, 2015, 8:11 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

As disclosed to me yesterday, the railtown lands currently sit in the East Village CRL. Therefore if Stadium/Arena is built at railtown site, a second CRL is not possible.

RyLucky
Aug 19, 2015, 8:18 PM
Druh's thoughts.....
http://www.calgary.ca/councillors/ward-7/Pages/News/Blog----Is-CalgaryNEXT-a-good-idea.aspx

• Community Revitalization Levies can be high-risk ventures. To mitigate risk, a CRL needs a stable financial anchor. For example, the Bow Tower, the financial anchor for East Village (Rivers District), generates $22 million in property taxes per year. When the CRL expires, the taxes will go to general revenue. Currently the Saddledome does not pay property taxes. Where will the tax revenue come from to pay for the CRL?

This is a good point. What are the chances the WV can generate enough tax revenue to pay off a $240M if half the area is used for a non-taxable stadium? The CRL would probably need hundreds of millions more to complete clean up and service/attract tenants.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 19, 2015, 8:22 PM
The district would probably be drawn to include the development area south of the Sunalta LRT station which would help a bit, perhaps a block or two east of 14th Street even.

Denscafon
Aug 19, 2015, 8:22 PM
As disclosed to me yesterday, the railtown lands currently sit in the East Village CRL. Therefore if Stadium/Arena is built at railtown site, a second CRL is not possible.

If that's true that is very strange as Railtown is not even part of East village. The land in that area is almost the same size as East Village by itself, not including Fort Calgary.

Ramsayfarian
Aug 19, 2015, 8:22 PM
We could have been given the "concept" 2 years ago, for all that waiting I was expecting more on the detail side of things.

Exactly. Seems like the only thing they worked on was their song and dance. Yesterday on the CBC, they mentioned that a listener told them it reminded him of the mono-rail episode from The Simpsons.

artvandelay
Aug 19, 2015, 8:30 PM
If that's true that is very strange as Railtown is not even part of East village. The land in that area is almost the same size as East Village by itself, not including Fort Calgary.

Neither is the Bow (the office tower would've happened regardless), but they gerrymandered the CRL district to make the financials for EV work.

Halofire
Aug 19, 2015, 8:34 PM
I can't see any credible reason to support this proposal. It does very little for the city, at a major cost to it. The flames can stay in the Dome for another 15 years and in that time, the owner's can save up for their own arena/stadium, and pay for the land they put it on.

There's absolutely no chance of the Flames or Stampeders running off to another city for a more favorable venue.

bt04ku
Aug 19, 2015, 8:36 PM
Better for whom?

Well it's better for the owners and the team. They make more money, which can either be used to line pockets or pay players/staff to get a better team which will win more and provide more opportunities to make money.

If the building is full, then it implies it is at least no worse, but is often better for the fans. At least for those willing to pay for it.

A 25,000 seat arena may seem like it is good for fans, but is it? With the TV angles we get nowadays who wants to sit on the fourth deck to watch a hockey game? Considering these seats are the most expensive to build and bring in the least revenue, it isn't good for the team either, and they will want to pass these exponentially inflated construction costs onto the consumer. So you might get more capacity, but are likely going to be paying the same price as the worst seat in the Saddledome for a much worse seat in the new arena because it's a good fifty feet further from the ice. Is that better for anybody?

ByeByeBaby
Aug 19, 2015, 8:41 PM
If you went to any one of the millionaire/billionaire businessmen who are owners of this hockey club with a proposal this thinly and half-assedly thought out asking for half a billion dollars in investment, do you really think they would treat it seriously? If you think the answer is yes, then ask yourself if you went asking for a half a billion dollars in donations with this napkin sketch if they'd open their purses.

Is McMahon old? Yes. Is the Saddledome old? Sure getting there. Should we replace these facilities? Probably. Should they be in the West Village? Not a terrible idea. But this proposal is amateurish and embarrassing to the point that it's an insult. If I went to them with this business proposal, I'd be laughed out of their offices, and I can't understand why we shouldn't do the same to them.

They're asking for a gift worth over half a billion dollars; they can spend a few hundred grand or even a few million producing a serious proposal with a design, not the numbers you wrote on a napkin at lunch and a rendering your nephew did in SketchUp.

RyLucky
Aug 19, 2015, 8:44 PM
In the end it is probably better to bundle it [the ticket tax] with the CRL and use it to revenue smooth the loans so that the CRL doesn't accumulate additional debt beyond the original capital spend based on the development lag, but that doesn't mean it has to be.


There's an interesting idea.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 19, 2015, 8:44 PM
It is a damned if you do damned if you don't. They want to get feedback and revise, and work with existing organizations. Sort of hard to do so with an ever widening amount of non-disclosure agreements to get to the point of an announcement where people will yell about how everything has already been decided and it is an affront to not have held public consultations earlier to help develop the concept more.

bt04ku
Aug 19, 2015, 8:46 PM
This is a good point. What are the chances the WV can generate enough tax revenue to pay off a $240M if half the area is used for a non-taxable stadium? The CRL would probably need hundreds of millions more to complete clean up and service/attract tenants.

The proposed CRL makes less sense with the arena being city-owned. If the team owned it and paid property taxes on it, then it would provide the anchor tenant for a CRL. This would effectively make it a cheap loan to the team they would use their own property tax to repay. The more development that happens after, the less of the loan they need to pay back on their own which is good for them, and despite the city effectively forfeiting property tax dollars to fund the arena, they can at least say it went to rejuvenating the area in the first place, but be able to map out when the $240M investment will actually show a positive return for the city. I don't think that could happen if the largest building in the CRL area is city-owned.

Unless I'm way out to lunch on how a CRL would work.

RyLucky
Aug 19, 2015, 9:00 PM
If you went to any one of the millionaire/billionaire businessmen who are owners of this hockey club with a proposal this thinly and half-assedly thought out asking for half a billion dollars in investment, do you really think they would treat it seriously? If you think the answer is yes, then ask yourself if you went asking for a half a billion dollars in donations with this napkin sketch if they'd open their purses.

Is McMahon old? Yes. Is the Saddledome old? Sure getting there. Should we replace these facilities? Probably. Should they be in the West Village? Not a terrible idea. But this proposal is amateurish and embarrassing to the point that it's an insult. If I went to them with this business proposal, I'd be laughed out of their offices, and I can't understand why we shouldn't do the same to them.

They're asking for a gift worth over half a billion dollars; they can spend a few hundred grand or even a few million producing a serious proposal with a design, not the numbers you wrote on a napkin at lunch and a rendering your nephew did in SketchUp.

Well said.

RyLucky
Aug 19, 2015, 9:06 PM
The proposed CRL makes less sense with the arena being city-owned. If the team owned it and paid property taxes on it, then it would provide the anchor tenant for a CRL. This would effectively make it a cheap loan to the team they would use their own property tax to repay. The more development that happens after, the less of the loan they need to pay back on their own which is good for them, and despite the city effectively forfeiting property tax dollars to fund the arena, they can at least say it went to rejuvenating the area in the first place, but be able to map out when the $240M investment will actually show a positive return for the city. I don't think that could happen if the largest building in the CRL area is city-owned.

Unless I'm way out to lunch on how a CRL would work.

You're right about the CRL, but the proposal is for the city to own the arena.

Tropics
Aug 19, 2015, 10:24 PM
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.

With the massive amount of cleanup that site needs, which will likely amount to digging a gigantic hole/trench and removing a huge amount of contaminated material from the site? At that point you are better off just using that excavation to construct a cut and cover tunnel as you are spending the money on the "cut" portion regardless for the site cleanup.

At least that gives the city (us tax payers) an added benefit from having to foot the bill for the site cleanup. I would like to see Bow Trail go underground, at the northern (westbound) side at the very least, but if they dropped both the east and west portions underground through west village that would be ideal.

With both Bow Trail and the CPR tracks the West Village is very tough to make into a proper pedestrian environment, and with the river right there and this new sports complex going in the City should be doing their absolute best to make that whole area very pedestrian friendly.

osmo
Aug 19, 2015, 10:30 PM
Flames won't leave Calgary...

Name a American market where you would make the same money...

This isn't the 90's, no team is leaving Canada.

Arena will get built some how some way, it's the Stadium that is the tricky part.

suburbia
Aug 19, 2015, 11:02 PM
Let's be clear. A new stadium of the same size is better for the owners.

Current annual operating income for the owners: $23 M.

My understanding is the profits from events they bring in is more than the operating income of the sports teams.

Bokimon
Aug 19, 2015, 11:03 PM
I'm glad my ranting post earlier somehow started something. Though a bit off handed in my comments, but I believe I raise a decent point about the mentality of the ownership culture and the way they presented themselves when showing off this huge game changing project to the public. The Monorail episode of the Simpsons reflects very similar to this project, a comparison that I agree. I just don't want us to end up footing the bill or getting shafted in some way while only these guys benefit during the lifetime of the facility. When they only are committed to pitching in a fraction of the total cost, it brings a worrying tone to the long term viability of a fancy new facility. Maybe the city does pay for it and charge rent to the teams to recoup all those public funds?
If the intent of this was to show off the conceptual idea of what the facility would look like or how they would function together, and who would be paying for this, then I guess they did their job. Though I personally disagree.

I would of at least hired an architectural firm to do some preliminary design work and urban planning studies to at least expose the potential challenges that will come up if this complex gets built. Ontop of that a firm can produce much more detailed and realistic renders as well suitable for media and public release.

CalgaryArchitecture
Aug 19, 2015, 11:18 PM
Saw this on CalgaryPuck, what do you guys think?

https://i.gyazo.com/289f0bb14f15f51b7ed2a7389a74acab.png
Reroute Bow Trail Eastbound going off onto 10 Ave SW, which would need to be upgraded to accommodate the traffic.

Bow Trail Westbound goes all the way around the complex.

Fieldhouse is in the middle with direct connection for Sunalta LRT.

The Stadium located where Renfrew Chrysler is currently, still leaving the pump-house theater untouched.

In front of the fieldhouse is residential,mixed with commercial space with views of the riverfront. much like a boardwalk.

More commercial, residential take up the other parts.

Denscafon
Aug 19, 2015, 11:25 PM
if you separate the parts of the complex into separate buildings, the cost will go up according to Ken King at least, so I highly doubt they're willing to do that.

RyLucky
Aug 19, 2015, 11:40 PM
With the massive amount of cleanup that site needs, which will likely amount to digging a gigantic hole/trench and removing a huge amount of contaminated material from the site? At that point you are better off just using that excavation to construct a cut and cover tunnel as you are spending the money on the "cut" portion regardless for the site cleanup.

At least that gives the city (us tax payers) an added benefit from having to foot the bill for the site cleanup. I would like to see Bow Trail go underground, at the northern (westbound) side at the very least, but if they dropped both the east and west portions underground through west village that would be ideal.

With both Bow Trail and the CPR tracks the West Village is very tough to make into a proper pedestrian environment, and with the river right there and this new sports complex going in the City should be doing their absolute best to make that whole area very pedestrian friendly.

The idea of combining creosote excavation and lowing/covering Bow Trail is definitely one that should be explored.

The Fisher Account
Aug 19, 2015, 11:54 PM
if you separate the parts of the complex into separate buildings, the cost will go up according to Ken King at least, so I highly doubt they're willing to do that.

Real translation: if we do separate buildings, we destroy our chacnes of getting $200M from The City and we really have no impetus to build a fieldhouse:runaway:

Fuzz
Aug 20, 2015, 12:21 AM
There is no reason to have the fieldhouse downtown if it is separate. And that plan keeps West Village separated from the river by Bow Trail. Not a fan.

Maybe when I'm back from my bike ride I'll draw my plan. Or maybe I'll just have a beer.

nick.flood
Aug 20, 2015, 1:00 AM
delete

PPAR
Aug 20, 2015, 1:00 AM
Flames won't leave Calgary...

Name a American market where you would make the same money...

This isn't the 90's, no team is leaving Canada.

Arena will get built some how some way, it's the Stadium that is the tricky part.

Well Shania Twain is going on tour, the Bluejays are winning and the loonie is at 75 cents US.... Are you sure it's not the 90's.

Design-mind
Aug 20, 2015, 3:39 AM
With all the details left out of the $890 M budget, like the clean up of the land, moving of the roads, etc, and tax payers being involved, makes this project look like government trying to pull the wool over tax-payers eyes.

I don't mind the design of the stadium, but this project seems like a very poorly planned idea that someone just dreamt up over night. Maybe even an effort to relieve jealousy of the new arena to the North. I really think this one needs to go back to the drawing board. Not a fan. Just my humble opinion.

milomilo
Aug 20, 2015, 3:48 AM
Flames won't leave Calgary...

Name a American market where you would make the same money...

This isn't the 90's, no team is leaving Canada.

Arena will get built some how some way, it's the Stadium that is the tricky part.

Why do we even care if they leave? If they do, or threaten to, then it just proves that these sports teams are completely irrelevent to the city.

To be honest, supporting the Flames out of any sort of 'patriotism' to the city is utterly moronic.

Policy Wonk
Aug 20, 2015, 7:22 AM
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?

Given it appears the earlier remediation and containment has either failed or never worked in the first place it would be very difficult to get away with much less than the full Superfund treatment.

I would tell the Flames to partner with a developer and sell them the land less suitable ROW's for a dollar. They and the developer will be responsible for the clean-up.

Bigtime
Aug 20, 2015, 12:50 PM
The John Oliver bit on stadiums has been posted right?

Fuzz
Aug 20, 2015, 2:24 PM
http://i60.tinypic.com/281stoi.jpg
Red: eastbound
green: westbound
blue: pedestrian
gray: buildings

Figured I'd fix a little bit of Crowchild. I'm sure this isn't the best road design, but just showing something could be done by adding an extra lane to the bridge. This fixes the Memorial crossover pain. Traffic circle may need work, that whole area is a bit of a cluster*, but does maintain the same access as before. Primarily I wanted to get the big roads out of the way and open grand pedestrian passageways. Bow speed limits may need to be reduced for safety given there may be lots of traffic at games.

Not sure if the Pumphouse Theatre was staying, so I assumed it was. If it goes, that opens more space to maybe move the arena further west.

The biggest drawback is no direct transit access to the arena. Walking distance is about 500m. Current Saddledome is ~400m. I think it's worth the sacrifice.

An alternative for Bow Westbound would be to burry it, roughly following the pedestrian blue but I actually don't see a huge point to that unless eastbound is buried as well to kind of open up to Sunalta. Still have the railway though. And would be expensive.

Anyway, have at 'er. I'm sure there are vast improvements to be made, but I get the feeling I put more thought into this (an hour) than KK did into his....

MichaelS
Aug 20, 2015, 2:25 PM
I bet those greedy suburbanites in the SE and North have a net-worth much higher than the cost of the Green Line LRT. Many if not most of the households are millionaires!

By not pooling their money and building this asset they are just out of touch dinosaurs who only care about money.

You can't be serious with this argument. Most people will agree that providing public transit is an obligation of government and an appropriate use of tax dollars. Providing a pro sports stadium is completely different.

Jay in Cowtown
Aug 20, 2015, 2:29 PM
If I have to look at f'n basketball hoops off to the left of the endzone in the new McMahon... it'll only be once! lol

I'm still on the fence about this thing being attached, and I definitely don't like the stadium in those "concept" pictures... but I guess we'll see. Two stand alones is what I'd rather see off course.

Oh, and stadiums need parking lots!

RyLucky
Aug 20, 2015, 2:54 PM
.
The biggest drawback is no direct transit access to the arena. Walking distance is about 500m. Current Saddledome is ~400m. I think it's worth the sacrifice.


You could make the walk feel a bit shorter with a direct walkway from the west end of Sunalta to the nearest point of the stadium.

I still think having the stadium directly beside the LRT is the best option. Afterall, you want to encourage as many people to use transit as possible to save room on parking, and more people will probably use the station for the stadium than any other purpose.

Fuzz
Aug 20, 2015, 3:12 PM
The biggest problem with that is it isolates West Village so much by stuffing it off in the corner. I'd rather the community have access to the LRT than the arena.
I wonder if you could do a covered elevated sidewalk along the south edge of the buildings directly to the arena. About 350m.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 20, 2015, 3:41 PM
You can't be serious with this argument. Most people will agree that providing public transit is an obligation of government and an appropriate use of tax dollars. Providing a pro sports stadium is completely different.

Semi-serious. Similar market failures exist that necessitate government intervention unless you can book top tier entertainment every night.

When you look at stadiums, they are uneconomic to build in most markets. At 375,192 event tickets a year (which may or may not include Lacrosse tickets since it was different owners) and 690,399 Oilers tickets, 242,745 Oil King tickets, Rexall is one of the busiest arenas in north america, way busier than the Saddledome. To pay off $600 million dollars, ($30 - $34 million a year in payments for interest rates of 2.88 and 3.88%) you would need a ticket tax/profit captured by the arena per event ticket of $23 an event to pay off the arena in 30 years. That is in addition to the cost to actually run the building (let us be generous and assume a low number of another $10 per ticket per event) and accommodate the event (even more).

Someone at some time must have measured the price elasticity for event tickets, but I imagine it would be highly variable based on team's records, and the fame of particular artists. This leads to a problem if a lot of your events to generate sales are of a lower calibre (an artist that at the margin could go to the Corral, or a Saddledome configured to be a 6-8000 person concert venue), a group that can sell out at $60 but not at higher prices, and lower ticket priced events such as the sports teams beyond the NHL (let us not forget that you have to account for a future where it may be harder to sell NHL tickets as well).

So you have a classic market failure, adverse selection, where some potential users drop out, and then the prices go up for remaining users, and more users drop out again. You also have a market failure based on the quasi public good of arena availability, where it is impossible to charge people the real value they derive from having that one event they really want in the city but could care less about the rest (while individual tickets are excludable, the availability of tickets and the venue has value in and of themselves).

Governments in the past have solved these problems by building facilities then leasing them out based on revenue optimization or utilization optimization not cost recovery. I don't know why there is no controversy about solving this problem to the benefit of the billionaire John Gore's Broadway across Canada at the Jubilee to choose another purely commercial venture, but not for other forms of entertainment. From Calgary alone they are bringing in $20 million a year from their touring shows (based on the owner's comments in the economist). (http://www.economist.com/news/business/21577062-musicals-business-bigger-more-global-and-more-fabulous-ever-tills-are-alive)

RyLucky
Aug 20, 2015, 4:03 PM
I'm sceptical of KK's plan's ability to attract and sustain WV development, mainly because of how disjointed the community will be and the assumption that office demand will outpace residential in the neighbourhood. I think that the majority of adjacent development ought to be CC-X, with high density further south and less density as we get closer to the river. If the development doesn't reach a critical mass, it will flounder. The area's greatest assets are the river, the adjacent neighbourhoods, and the LRT, but KK's design fails to fully utilize all of these.

Here's my 20 minute sketch-up that shows how you could solve some of the problems with KK's design.

http://i.imgur.com/EkfyGGV.jpg

1) Move the stadium as far south as possible. Run Bow Trail EB under the bleachers. Build mall/concourse into north side of Sunalta station.

2) Align Bow Trail WB with the north side of the stadium. Develop as much as shadowing will allow north of Bow Trail to make the neighbourhood as contiguous as possible with Eau Claire and Hillhurst. Outbound traffic from downtown along WB Bow is also an opportunity for urban-format big-box retail that could serve the WV.

3) Create a new corridor from 19th St NW to Sunalta. This could hug the side of the stadium and go over Bow Trail into the Sunalta Concourse. It has to be easy for people to get between Hillhurst, WV, Sunalta neighbourhoods.

4) Build high-density residential, hotel, and office projects adjacent to CPR, LRT, Bow Trail, and Crowchild Trail. Leave no loosestrife-ridden storage yard undevelopable. For reference, a residential building 100-200 m away from the river can be 33 stories (ie. Pulse). That's about halfway between the river and the CPR. The block I've illustrated north of WB Bow Trail could be about 10-15 stories. The block adjacent to the CPR could be 50+ stories if there were ever demand.

5) Orient around greenspaces, pathways, and placemarkers along the Bow River.

6) I left 14th St/Bow Tr as is, but something needs to be fixed there.


See, it doesn't need to be scrapped altogether, just a few changes. As for funding, I think the owners (and directly or indirectly, the stadium users) ought to pay for the basic price of building a stadium on level ground, and the city ought to use CRLs for everything else.

Socguy
Aug 20, 2015, 4:05 PM
Agreed with posters who say that there is almost no chance of Flames leaving. They are in the top half of league revenue. Where are they going to go to make more? Even if they did leave out of spite, there's a dozen other teams that would gain financially by moving into the Saddledome.

There was an interesting comment from a professor on CBC radio today. He made the point that sport complexes built nowadays don't last much more than 20-25 years, which means that just as the complexes are paid the whole saga starts over. This further cements in my mind that the ones benefiting from facility should be the ones paying for it since it's far more incentive not to agitate for government to finance a new building... a business will be less likely to walk away from a structure they are invested in and instead will be more likely to renovate their property first and make it work.

Ticket tax: Ok with this in principal.
200M field house: Skeptical but willing to listen. Need to see much more detail on how the public will benefit since this money is basically building the stamps a new stadium.
CRL: Have not read anything that changes my mind that this is an appropriate use of a CRL. I don't see building this complex as a catalyst for development in West Village, so much as cleaning up the site would be. In fact, I could easily imagine that the complex would actually reduce the value of the site to the city since it would take up valuable space that more profitable uses could otherwise have and, as was pointed out, how it may become a barrier to proper integration of a unified West Village. Agree with the posters who argue that Railtown is a better site, dispite the issues. At least Edmonton had the notion that moving the arena downtown could help. Calgary already has their arena downtown. From the CBC KK radio interview today: He was asked why there were no developers standing beside him raring to go at the presentation. His response was vague: "We've had discussions and there's interest". Hmmm.

Bottom line, If KK wants this complex that's great but he should buy the land and build it himself. The City already has an arena and the Flames make a lot of money playing there despite its age.

artvandelay
Aug 20, 2015, 4:35 PM
After having a few days to digest the proposal, here are my thoughts:

The Concept: B+

I like the idea of combining the Flames arena and Stampeders stadium. There are synergies to be achieved by combining things like back of house operations, mechanical systems, restaurants, training facilities, retail, and other fan amenities. Co-locating these facilities makes sense from an economic perspective, and if we want to host a major event in the future it will be great to have a sports & entertainment district. Also, the proposed location can't be beat.

When I first heard that a field-house was going to be combined with the stadium, I thought it was a bad idea that would result in a sub par stadium experience. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Calgary is in desperate need of a new large stadium. There is absolutely no economic case to build a football stadium in Canada and there is no way that a CFL stadium will be constructed with private sector dollars. Combining a fieldhouse with this complex checks off a major want on the City's recreation wishlist and combining amateur and professional sports makes sense. Also, one of the major problems with locating a stadium in an urban areas is that the facility remains a monolithic dead zone for 355 days a year. The fieldhouse (along with the community hockey rink) will ensure that the centrepiece of this new West Village neighbourhood is active at all times, which should benefit retail amenities in the area.

The challenge with the fieldhouse/stadium is going to be ensuring that this stadium doesn't feel like an oversized Jack Simpson Gymnasium during Stampeders game day, while maintaining full utility of a fieldhouse. A second rate facility is not acceptable for Calgary when Winnipeg, Regina, and Vancouver have new (or renovated) state of the art facilities. The only additional thing I'd like to see is a retractable roof. It's not a must have, but I'd hate to lose football outdoors on a sunny afternoon.

The District Plan: C-

As many others have mentioned, this is where CalgaryNEXT really falls short. I realize that this is a very early concept and they likely didn't want to open the can of worms of realigning Bow Trail, but it doesn't make sense development wise to have 1,000' feet of riverfront occupied by this complex and a roadway. Additionally, their proposed layout severs the western portion of the West Village (residential) from supporting amenities in the commercial area at the east. It just doesn't work very well. Luckily, there are a number of ways to remedy this:

1) Keep the stadium complex in its proposed location but move EB Bow Trail adjacent to the CP tracks and shift everything southward. WB Bow remains adjacent to the north side of the complex but as a treed, signalized boulevard. This would allow for development parcels riverside, which would provide a much better link between the east and west portions of the district.

2) Same as 1, but WB Bow Trail would be buried below the complex during construction and a calm access road / pedestrian street would take its place, allowing for larger development parcels. This would be the best option, but costs become a huge concern.

3) Stadium/arena moved to the western portion of the site adjacent to the Pumphouse theatre. This is the most heavily contaminated area, so there may be some cost savings by locating the complex there rather than residential. The West Village under this scenario would become a more coherent district. The obvious drawback is a longer walk to transit and poor access from EB Bow.

Regardless, the plan needs a lot of work in this area.

Financing Plan: B

I know that plenty of people are whinging about this (billionaire owners and millionaire players!, rabble rabble, Spendshi etc.) and there is going to be a huge fight regardless of how reasonable the proposal is, but I was pleasantly surprised to see the Flames putting up as much coin as they are for this.

By putting up $450 million ($200M cash, $250M in ticket levy) the Flames are essentially taking care of the arena portion of the project with entirely private money. This a better deal than what Edmonton ended up with and more in line with the way that Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver financed their buildings.

As I stated above, there is no economic case for privately financed football stadium. We are in need of a new one and the only way this will be achieved is with a public contribution. Including a fieldhouse and community rink makes this far more palatable for public investment.

The CRL should be the main point of contention with this plan. A CRL is would likely be used to finance redevelopment of the West Village in any case. Can redevelopment of the area and construction of the complex be completed with a $240 million CRL? And will subsequent private development in the West Village be valuable enough to support payback of the initial loan? This depends on how well executed the development is.

Execution: C

The execution of the presentation thus far has left much to be desired. I realize that this is very conceptual in nature, but perhaps the plan shouldn't have been brought to the public at this stage? The renderings were weak, the district plan doesn't make sense, and the PowerPoint looks like it was thrown together in an afternoon. They've created many questions by not presenting a polished product.

Conversely, if they had developed a comprehensive plan and presented it, they risk public criticism for making backroom deals and not doing proper public engagement. It's really a lose-lose scenario.

I think it was a mistake not to breakdown the funding into different sources for the arena, and stadium/fieldhouse. Also, by calling it a ticket "tax" rather then a surcharge, they've confused people into thinking that this is a public contribution.

I'd hope that they bring in some private sector partners or consultants with experience in development. This project is very important for the city and will require some skill to get it off the ground.

H.E.Pennypacker
Aug 20, 2015, 4:51 PM
Here's my 20 minute sketch-up that shows how you could solve some of the problems with KK's design.


This is a nice quick revision to the concept plan although I don't like the idea of having WB Bow Trail running alongside the stadium ... Because it's a heavy traffic main route, it really would cut off from the development to the north and make it difficult for pedestrian interaction (not to mention dangerous when there are events are the new facility).

I would look to bury that segment of WB Bow Tr under the other side of bleachers as well, and use that space above grade to expand the pedestrian realm to improve vibrancy during non-event days and make it easy for pedestrians to walk around. Further to that it would open up the possibility for a larger plaza with the greenspace to the north. The corridor on the north side of the development could branch off of Bow Trail (via an interchange - help moderate speed) to be a one-way Stephen Ave type of street extending all the way west into the existing planned West village by the river.

Innersoul1
Aug 20, 2015, 5:05 PM
Okay, I have taken my time to mull this one over and consider all of the opinions that have been put forth. There has been lots of good dialogue and points to consider. By no mean am I an expert on any of this. Many of you have a much better knowledge of the nuances of the funding model, so I won't spend much time commenting on that. Below are some thought that I have.

Concept and Design
Ultimately, I think that we have to keep reminding ourselves that this is just a vision for the area. I am disappointed that the Flames didn't put more effort into this portion of things. As a number of you have pointed out, it just doesn't have a wow factor. I agree that cooperation amongst the forumers and out individual areas of expertise could have resulted in a much better concept design and presentation. That sketchup of the arena is about as shit as it comes. I am teaching a design class to grade 8 students this summer and the ARE doing better than that.

-I hope that they go with the ETFE roof that is translucent for the stadium. Obviously this isn't an option for the arena. But the translucent roof certainly adds to the wow factor and natural light is a wonderful thing for a year round facility. That being said I think that the orientation of the structure needs to change. I think that it would be much better if the complex ran north-south as the central adjoining area could facilitate flow through the building to the east and west residential and commercial areas.

-While I previously was a proponent of having the complex abutting the river I feel that this is a waste of precious space. I really like what RyLucky proposed with having the stadium as far south as possible. Thats good thinking and REALLY helps with the flow.

-There is a part of me that feels that this whole design and concept is just a feeler to see what the appetite of Calgarians and the various levels of government appetite is for an expenditure like this. I mean REALLY if you are going to propose a 900 million dollar project and haven't sought the expertise of an architect or a planner how can you be taken seriously!? If this proposal had come out with the support of some kind of design expertise and expert rendering whether they be conceptual or not it would really do a better job of winning over the public.

Remediation and Bow Trail
Who will cover the cost of remediation is obviously a BIG grey area. However, if they have to completely remove soil and dig a big pit, wouldn't this just organically facilitate the realignment of Bow Trail? We have established that tunneling would be costly, but couldn't a cut an cover method work especially if the tunnel was enclosed or partially enclosed by the stadium? I definitely agree that a Bow Trail alignment is a must.

Parking
I don't think that large swaths of parking would be needed. Some parking could definitely be facilitated underground. Most Stadia use underground parking for their club and box seat holders. But this would certainly facilitate people parking in various locations downtown and filtering into the West Village area. It might just add a bit more vibrancy into the core.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

nick.flood
Aug 20, 2015, 5:29 PM
delete

Cage
Aug 20, 2015, 5:30 PM
We could have been given the "concept" 2 years ago, for all that waiting I was expecting more on the detail side of things.

Exactly. Seems like the only thing they worked on was their song and dance.

Considering the business acumen of the individuals involved, I have to come to the conclusion there are many untold stories and failed ideas the flames have explored over the past 2-5 years.

I liken the Calgary Next proposal to YYC Airports adventures in expanding the international facilities. The first version of the international facilities project was merely a large 15 gate extension onto the current B concourse. But this plan was inadequate for the central processor functions of checkin, bag processing, customs, etc. Version 2.0 is what is under construction. However in order to solve the central processor problems there is a huge efficiency impact on the air side. AC and WS will no longer be able to efficiently transfer aircraft from domestic to International/transborder and vice versa.

Learning from the YYC Airport experience, I believe it would be beneficial for the Flames/KK to provide a lot more information on the failed concepts. This would be particularly helpful from a financing perspective.

If you went to any one of the millionaire/billionaire businessmen who are owners of this hockey club with a proposal this thinly and half-assedly thought out asking for half a billion dollars in investment, do you really think they would treat it seriously?

Talking to a fifteen member board of directors is way different than talking to 15,000 season ticket holders while also being mindful the 1.2 million person city is also watching.

Two big differences:
- The Board members are guided by fiduciary duty to act in best interests of the Shareholders they represent. Boards also tend to be of singular mind, by which I mean they all think alike. This is impossible anytime someone decides to engage the general public.
- Much like city council, board members must approach every item with an open mind, general public on the other hand frequently is close minded.
- Third difference, Board must be highly educated about the topic at hand (e.g. the Audit Committee must possess financial literacy), general public has no such requirement.

It is a damned if you do damned if you don't. They want to get feedback and revise, and work with existing organizations. Sort of hard to do so with an ever widening amount of non-disclosure agreements to get to the point of an announcement where people will yell about how everything has already been decided and it is an affront to not have held public consultations earlier to help develop the concept more.

If what KK wanted was to get feedback and revise then he should not have:
- said there is no plan B.
- come together with finance plan/slides/ideas.
- Come to the meeting without hard dollar costs for stadium and arena.
- Held the meeting in the middle of August at time when the Mayor and rest of Calgary is on summer vacation.

The John Oliver bit on stadiums has been posted right?

That John Oliver piece has inundated my social media feeds. If I had a dollar for each time someone in my feeds has posted it, I could fund the ticket tax and CRL out of my lunch money.

Surrealplaces
Aug 20, 2015, 5:30 PM
Not that I'm arguing the case, but how would Rexall place be way busier than the Saddledome? Both arenas have almost the same number of events. Rexall gets a few concerts that we don't, and also a week of Canadian finals Rodeo, but the Dome also gets higher attendance numbers on NHL, WHL, and Lacrosse.



When you look at stadiums, they are uneconomic to build in most markets. At 375,192 event tickets a year (which may or may not include Lacrosse tickets since it was different owners) and 690,399 Oilers tickets, 242,745 Oil King tickets, Rexall is one of the busiest arenas in north america, way busier than the Saddledome. To pay off $600 million dollars, ($30 - $34 million a year in payments for interest rates of 2.88 and 3.88%) you would need a ticket tax/profit captured by the arena per event ticket of $23 an event to pay off the arena in 30 years. That is in addition to the cost to actually run the building (let us be generous and assume a low number of another $10 per ticket per event) and accommodate the event (even more).

O-tacular
Aug 20, 2015, 5:35 PM
I'm glad my ranting post earlier somehow started something. Though a bit off handed in my comments, but I believe I raise a decent point about the mentality of the ownership culture and the way they presented themselves when showing off this huge game changing project to the public. The Monorail episode of the Simpsons reflects very similar to this project, a comparison that I agree. I just don't want us to end up footing the bill or getting shafted in some way while only these guys benefit during the lifetime of the facility. When they only are committed to pitching in a fraction of the total cost, it brings a worrying tone to the long term viability of a fancy new facility. Maybe the city does pay for it and charge rent to the teams to recoup all those public funds?
If the intent of this was to show off the conceptual idea of what the facility would look like or how they would function together, and who would be paying for this, then I guess they did their job. Though I personally disagree.

I would of at least hired an architectural firm to do some preliminary design work and urban planning studies to at least expose the potential challenges that will come up if this complex gets built. Ontop of that a firm can produce much more detailed and realistic renders as well suitable for media and public release.

You beat me to it. After seeing the presentaiton I actually had Phil Hartman's voice in my head going "What's that word? Monorail!".

MalcolmTucker
Aug 20, 2015, 5:40 PM
Not that I'm arguing the case, but how would Rexall place be way busier than the Saddledome? Both arenas have almost the same number of events. Rexall gets a few concerts that we don't, and also a week of Canadian finals Rodeo, but the Dome also gets higher attendance numbers on NHL, WHL, and Lacrosse.
A company, Pollstar, tracks this (found a more current list just now to link to, I think my numbers for events were 2013 numbers). The big difference is on the event side.

http://canadianmusician.com/blog/2015/01/15/15-canadian-venues-rank-in-list-of-top-200-busiest-arena-venues-globally/


2014 numbers:
11- Air Canada Centre – Toronto, ON (584,729 tickets)

31- Bell Centre – Montreal, QC (442,710 tickets)

33- Rexall Place – Edmonton, AB (405,408 ticket)

64- MTS Centre – Winnipeg, MB (241,045 tickets)

65- Canadian Tire Centre – Ottawa, ON (237,055 tickets)

66- Rogers Centre – Vancouver, BC (224,400 tickets)

68- Scotiabank Saddledome – Calgary, AB (210,727 tickets)

83- Budweiser Gardens – London, ON (160,160 tickets)

85- SaskTel Centre – Saskatoon, SK (155,655 tickets)

suburbia
Aug 20, 2015, 5:48 PM
The piece I want to zone in on is the impact on the district plan. Unfortunately, the limited size of West Village, and in particular, geometry that leaves the N-S distance very limited (particularly given road needs) is very close to a show-stopper for me. This is where a clean slate of much better size, like Firepark, is much superior.

Innersoul1
Aug 20, 2015, 5:53 PM
This is a nice quick revision to the concept plan although I don't like the idea of having WB Bow Trail running alongside the stadium ... Because it's a heavy traffic main route, it really would cut off from the development to the north and make it difficult for pedestrian interaction (not to mention dangerous when there are events are the new facility).

I would look to bury that segment of WB Bow Tr under the other side of bleachers as well, and use that space above grade to expand the pedestrian realm to improve vibrancy during non-event days and make it easy for pedestrians to walk around. Further to that it would open up the possibility for a larger plaza with the greenspace to the north. The corridor on the north side of the development could branch off of Bow Trail (via an interchange - help moderate speed) to be a one-way Stephen Ave type of street extending all the way west into the existing planned West village by the river.

What if they trenched WB Bow Trail along the stadium and residential portion? Above could be a pedestrian plaza as you suggested that connects to the northern residential and river walk area.

The Fisher Account
Aug 20, 2015, 5:58 PM
That John Oliver piece has inundated my social media feeds. If I had a dollar for each time someone in my feeds has posted it, I could fund the ticket tax and CRL out of my lunch money.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/7faa5e9e075092481e57da77358f80d7/tumblr_nk6lp22lJU1re3x32o1_500.gif


Hahahahahah

dazzlingdave88
Aug 20, 2015, 5:58 PM
That John Oliver piece has inundated my social media feeds. If I had a dollar for each time someone in my feeds has posted it, I could fund the ticket tax and CRL out of my lunch money.


Your point?

You don't agree with it?

You don't like hearing it?

MalcolmTucker
Aug 20, 2015, 6:25 PM
I agree with Oliver's piece entirely. The main benefit of an arena is having an arena. The city would recover a bit of the entertainment spending leakage to Vancouver, Seattle, and Edmonton but the number would be pretty small. Otherwise local spending is just displaced from non-arena based entertainment.

The field house amateur component likely would have a much higher economic impact mostly from tourism but it wouldn't be a huge number either in the context of all tourism.

That isn't to say I disagree with public support for this project. There are lots of goods as citizens consume that cannot be sustained by the private economy. We do not expect leisure centres to cover their capital costs even though heavy users would probably opt to build more facilities like the Winter Club to support them if the city retreated from public provision.

The public policy question is without this facility or ones like it (assuming the dome will eventually need to be life cycled at a high cost and that McMahon can probably continue indefinitely, and that the field house in some form will be built so you can discount all the benefits and costs from it except the increase in capacity from 10k to 30k) will we have an under provision of entertainment below what the public would like to consume, at a price they can afford?

I don't think support for this project is unreasonable just as I don't think support for a redevelopment of the Creative Commons is unreasonable. Both are responses to the difficulty of providing a service at a price people are willing to pay. Do we need to have an economic impact statement from the symphony orchestra and the Jack Singer to want to support them? Or do we just need to know that there is no way that it would work on its own without government support?

Does society receive an intangible benefit from these activities that we would miss if they did not exist? I think so.

Bokimon
Aug 20, 2015, 6:37 PM
I like some of the sketches showing Bow Tr. West bound being moved down to align with the eastbound lanes, it frees up all that extra space to provide greater flex room for the urban design.

Even better, I love the idea of encasing Bow Tr in a tunnel or underground. Think of the Alaska Viaduct in Seattle how this major route runs right beneath belltown and then comes out flying along the harbor, though it killed any hopes of vibrancy in the area by blocking off downtown to the water, it does the job by providing ample room to build out lower downtown with all sorts of housing and mixed use projects while keeping the major road (an eyesore) hidden beneath. They may not have a stadium or arena in Belltown but there is the Seattle Center complex which draws a ton of people, many locals simply walk a few blocks with relative ease without worrying about expressways impeding their travel. Having the Bow Tr. artery encased opens up the maximum room available to really design this project the right way.
I don't just see it as a new home for our sports team but this really is the West Village urban revitalization that the flames owners are trying to envision. But maybe it might of been too big of a task as they inadvertently are going to affect so many other aspects of this neighborhood requiring additional research and studies of its own such as the transportation and urban design. I admit, this is a very challenging project and is more complex than EV.

B-side
Aug 20, 2015, 6:55 PM
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.


Then they should offer up $450M in total (by financing $250M on their own) and eliminate the ticket tax altogether. They would just raise their prices to recoup their principle and borrowing costs. In that case, they really are footing the bill. Why complicate things with a ticket tax?

milomilo
Aug 20, 2015, 6:55 PM
If burying Bow is completely impossible, then elevated pedestrian walkways could be a good option.

The Melbourne Olympic Park has a huge railway line and roads going through it, but it has large/wide aerial walkways and plazas so you never need to cross any roads.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Melbourne+VIC,+Australia/@-37.8209149,144.9833454,426m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x6ad646b5d2ba4df7:0x4045675218ccd90!6m1!1e1?hl=en

milomilo
Aug 20, 2015, 7:00 PM
Then they should offer up $450M in total (by financing $250M on their own) and eliminate the ticket tax altogether. They would just raise their prices to recoup their principle and borrowing costs. In that case, they really are footing the bill. Why complicate things with a ticket tax?

I guess this ticket tax would be added to all events at the arena, not just Flames games?

Joborule
Aug 20, 2015, 7:16 PM
Very quick and rough, but this solves a bunch of issues.
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb15/smashcard/Construction/westvillageroughpaint_zpsktorl0s1.jpg
- In order to keep the complex close to the LRT and for platform efficiency, users can go to Sunalta or Kerby equally.
- Also keeps more residential space for West Village and with good access to the Sunalta LRT
- Relocate the skate park and shift EB Bow trail as far south as possible for this stretch and put the arena there, with the fieldhouse on the other side of the LRT line.
- Use Shaw Millenium as a game day plaza.
- Use a traffic circle to merge 14th street traffic with west bound 5th Ave and over to the south side, in line with the current east bound Bow trail.
- This opens up the entire river front for residential and pedestrian use.
- 14th Street south of the tracks will become a restaurant and bar strip as it currently has plenty of property ready to redevelop

I'm no transit expert either, but would it be possible to bring trains from the NW-S line west to the Kerby station and then head back towards 9th street and go north and some switch tracks somewhere between and get to the south side east bound track? Then people could get on both lines from that station.
That's an interesting concept. You could probably even implement the LRT station into the complex itself, which would be the best option. I do like that there's a plaza/park aspect of it, to have a gather place on gamedays.

The concept plan is very vague and basic intentionally I feel, and nothing definite was presented because now it's becoming a partnership between CSE and the city. So it leaves room for lots of tweaks and changes in later versions of the plan. Roadways, pathways, and land use layouts most likely being the biggest adjustments.

Having the concept settle on me for a few days. I feel these are the necessary requirements for this to be a project to go forward on:

- The river is the biggest asset in this area. That riverfront should be a high pedestrian area, meaning the area around it has to limit vehicular activity. The original West Village concept included a riverfront promenade, and this still needs to be the case. There should be mixed used residential/retail that lines up along the promenade to give this area life 365 days a year. It'll also make the western residential buildings of the area have a connection to the eastern portion.

The buildings along the promenade could have an intregration with the sports complex, which would make it similar to what the new Detroit Red Wings arena (http://www.districtdetroit.com/neighborhoods/woodward-square) is going with. Mixed used on the envelope, and the event centre itself in the inside.

- The West Village plan also had a "Grand Staircase" concept. I think the pathway corridor could still be implemented for the sports complex. The +15 portion that connects train station into the complex should be an open pathway to connect Sunalta station to the river promenade. The connection between the stadium/fieldhouse and event centre could still be present beneath the +15, or below the ground floor if there's a street beneath instead.

- Bow Trail westbound cannot stay as is. It'll have to be twinned with the eastbound portion, bringing it closer to the CPR tracks, and/or buried underneath.

- The concept is missing a gathering place by the complex. There should be a hot spot for people to come together prior to gametime; giving it a bit more of a LA Live vibe. Perhaps by the northern entrance of the complex right by the river promenade.

- Pedestrian bridge that connects to 19 St NW. More so for the general bike and pedestrian traffic coming from/going to the NW of the area.

woychukb
Aug 20, 2015, 7:46 PM
A company, Pollstar, tracks this (found a more current list just now to link to, I think my numbers for events were 2013 numbers). The big difference is on the event side.

http://canadianmusician.com/blog/2015/01/15/15-canadian-venues-rank-in-list-of-top-200-busiest-arena-venues-globally/

I just added up the numbers in the link you provided plus the attendance for the Flames/Hitmen/Roughnecks vs. Oilers/Oil Kings/Rush in the last season and the Saddledome has a higher attendance for 2014/15:


Hitmen Regular Season 304,649
Hitmen Playoffs 63,793
Roughnecks Regular 104,785
Roughnecks Playoffs 25,570
Flames Regular 816,187
Flames Playoffs 96,445
Concert Tickets 210,727
Brier 151,835
-------------------------------
Calgary Total 1,773,991

Oil Kings Regular 244,335
Oil Kings Playoffs 15,567
Rush Regular 59,207
Rush Playoffs 19,965
Oilers Regular 690,399
Concert Tickets 405,408
-------------------------------
Edmonton Total 1,434,881

Maybe Rexall has more events that aren't counted (such as the CFR which I couldn't find the current attendance for) but at best it's about even in the last year. 2013 may have been a different story as the Oil Kings had a good playoff run and the Flames didn't have any playoff games.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 20, 2015, 7:54 PM
Still, you need a pretty high facility fee (or portion of the profit from events) to actually pay for an arena to the point where some of those lower ticket price events wouldn't make sense in the arena anymore, leading you to a downwards cycle of higher fees and less events.

Surrealplaces
Aug 20, 2015, 8:06 PM
Thanks for digging those up. I thought I had read somewhere that Dome had more people in it per year, but couldn't find the stats. Outside if the rodeo, which is about 80K in total there really isn't much difference. Of course the Brier is a once in a while thing, so the two venues are generally not too far apart. The biggest consistent difference is the concerts, which of course would change as the new arena would be able to host all these concerts that have been missed. Our numbers for the concerts would be about the same, probably higher actually.

I just added up the numbers in the link you provided plus the attendance for the Flames/Hitmen/Roughnecks vs. Oilers/Oil Kings/Rush in the last season and the Saddledome has a higher attendance for 2014/15:


Hitmen Regular Season 304,649
Hitmen Playoffs 63,793
Roughnecks Regular 104,785
Roughnecks Playoffs 25,570
Flames Regular 816,187
Flames Playoffs 96,445
Concert Tickets 210,727
Brier 151,835
-------------------------------
Calgary Total 1,773,991

Oil Kings Regular 244,335
Oil Kings Playoffs 15,567
Rush Regular 59,207
Rush Playoffs 19,965
Oilers Regular 690,399
Concert Tickets 405,408
-------------------------------
Edmonton Total 1,434,881

Maybe Rexall has more events that aren't counted (such as the CFR which I couldn't find the current attendance for) but at best it's about even in the last year. 2013 may have been a different story as the Oil Kings had a good playoff run and the Flames didn't have any playoff games.

Surrealplaces
Aug 20, 2015, 8:09 PM
New numbers aside, I agree with what you are saying....and that's for an arena, it's even more difficult with a stadium.

Still, you need a pretty high facility fee (or portion of the profit from events) to actually pay for an arena to the point where some of those lower ticket price events wouldn't make sense in the arena anymore, leading you to a downwards cycle of higher fees and less events.

elly63
Aug 20, 2015, 8:14 PM
Just wondering what the reaction to the design is, not funding or need etc. What does Joe Calgarian think of the design? Obviously those of us at this forum have more than a passing interest and it seems as time has gone by, many are not keen on the concept design. What is the opinion of the average Calgarian, like it or hate it? Or are most fine with it.

mersar
Aug 20, 2015, 8:20 PM
Just wondering what the reaction to the design is, not funding or need etc. What does Joe Calgarian think of the design? Obviously those of us at this forum have more than a passing interest and it seems as time has gone by, many are not keen on the concept design. What is the opinion of the average Calgarian, like it or hate it? Or are most fine with it.

What design? All we've gotten so far is a placeholder and Joe Calgarian is stuck on the taxpayer paying for the arena issue from my discussions.

Denscafon
Aug 20, 2015, 8:22 PM
Ignoring the location, the funding proposal, and all other issues, I like the concept and design. The renders are very.... lacking though and Ken king says that is not what their final design is but I do like having a sports complex that has both stadium and arena next to each other. It's very similar to the VTB arena in moscow which I thought would be great if we could pull it off here in Calgary.

YYCguys
Aug 20, 2015, 8:32 PM
Very quick and rough, but this solves a bunch of issues.
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb15/smashcard/Construction/westvillageroughpaint_zpsktorl0s1.jpg
- In order to keep the complex close to the LRT and for platform efficiency, users can go to Sunalta or Kerby equally.
- Also keeps more residential space for West Village and with good access to the Sunalta LRT
- Relocate the skate park and shift EB Bow trail as far south as possible for this stretch and put the arena there, with the fieldhouse on the other side of the LRT line.
- Use Shaw Millenium as a game day plaza.
- Use a traffic circle to merge 14th street traffic with west bound 5th Ave and over to the south side, in line with the current east bound Bow trail.
- This opens up the entire river front for residential and pedestrian use.
- 14th Street south of the tracks will become a restaurant and bar strip as it currently has plenty of property ready to redevelop

I'm no transit expert either, but would it be possible to bring trains from the NW-S line west to the Kerby station and then head back towards 9th street and go north and some switch tracks somewhere between and get to the south side east bound track? Then people could get on both lines from that station.

This seems like a very well thought out plan, Nick. Good job! I like it! One question though, how does EB Bow access N/S 14th?

Innersoul1
Aug 20, 2015, 8:38 PM
Just wondering what the reaction to the design is, not funding or need etc. What does Joe Calgarian think of the design? Obviously those of us at this forum have more than a passing interest and it seems as time has gone by, many are not keen on the concept design. What is the opinion of the average Calgarian, like it or hate it? Or are most fine with it.

What design? All we've gotten so far is a placeholder and Joe Calgarian is stuck on the taxpayer paying for the arena issue from my discussions.

Exactly, there isn't a design at all. It's just some random structure with ideas. We have no specific design feature or details other than the stadium will be a field house also. In fact, what we were given was so ambiguous that half the forum felt the roof was translucent while the other felt that it was just show like that to show the interior space.

I feel like i would be much more content if there was some design to this rather than a place holder.

If they gave us this:
http://www.stadiumguide.com/wp-content/gallery/vtbarena/vtbarena1.jpg Credit: Stadiumguide.com
and this:
http://i071.radikal.ru/1103/dd/6041a1c0b744.jpg Credit:Skyscrapercity.com

Then we could talk a bit more about design.

Denscafon
Aug 20, 2015, 8:42 PM
I'm sorry to say but there is no chance that the city will destroy/move Millennium Park for the arena/ "game day plaza". I have never used the skate park myself but I can't see them taking a public facility that does not need to be replaced anytime soon to make room for a controversial sports complex when they could be on the other side of 14th st.

Surrealplaces
Aug 20, 2015, 8:49 PM
If they gave us something like that for a design, I'd be more than happy to see tax dollars used.

Exactly, there isn't a design at all. It's just some random structure with ideas. We have no specific design feature or details other than the stadium will be a field house also. In fact, what we were given was so ambiguous that half the forum felt the roof was translucent while the other felt that it was just show like that to show the interior space.

I feel like i would be much more content if there was some design to this rather than a place holder.

If they gave us this:
http://www.stadiumguide.com/wp-content/gallery/vtbarena/vtbarena1.jpg Credit: Stadiumguide.com
and this:
http://i071.radikal.ru/1103/dd/6041a1c0b744.jpg Credit:Skyscrapercity.com

Then we could talk a bit more about design.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 20, 2015, 8:54 PM
An early program for the VTB Arenahttp://www.imageup.ru/img43/vtbdynamoerickvanegeraa2409480.jpg
Source: fifasoccer.ru (http://fifasoccer.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=11347&page=3)
is nice, but somewhat surprisingly will have lower capacity for both the arena (27,000, expandable for special events to 45,000) and stadium (15,000) components than what the vision is for here.

Cage
Aug 20, 2015, 9:03 PM
Then they should offer up $450M in total (by financing $250M on their own) and eliminate the ticket tax altogether. They would just raise their prices to recoup their principle and borrowing costs. In that case, they really are footing the bill. Why complicate things with a ticket tax?

Not knowing anything about how the NHL works, but I suspect the ticket tax is a way to finance the arena build without any affect on the NHL salary cap. Current Salary cap has the players receiving 57% of total league revenue with specific line items such as ticket revenues being included in the salary cap calculation. However I'm almost certain that ticket taxes and facility charges are excluded from the salary cap calculation.

If the above is in fact true. then in order to generate $10 in ticket revenue to go towards the stadium, the Flames would have to charge the equivalent of $23.25 with the players getting $13.25 and the Arena build project getting the remaining $10.

I guess the question for flames ticket holders do you want the City to handle the ticket tax or the flames. Chose Flames and you ticket prices increase exponentially more than if City was to finance.

HomeInMyShoes
Aug 20, 2015, 9:04 PM
I think all of us would be more impressed if we got images like that.

The other thing that has been bugging me is that based on Nenshi's response it's like King has never talked with him about possibilities and ideas about funding which on something this big is ludicrous. It sets everyone up for a pissing show which on projects like this just ends up costing a lot of time and energy.

nick.flood
Aug 20, 2015, 9:05 PM
delete

The Fisher Account
Aug 20, 2015, 9:09 PM
I think all of us would be more impressed if we got images like that.

The other thing that has been bugging me is that based on Nenshi's response it's like King has never talked with him about possibilities and ideas about funding which on something this big is ludicrous. It sets everyone up for a pissing show which on projects like this just ends up costing a lot of time and energy.

He's very careful about this. It will be a key factor in his re-election I'm sure.

The 'Spendshi' monikers aren't going away any time soon, and if he doesn't fight for more private equity, he's going to get raked over the coals.

MalcolmTucker
Aug 20, 2015, 9:10 PM
That is something I hadn't considered Cage. It does constrain the owners a lot in how they can structure a deal.

nick.flood
Aug 20, 2015, 9:12 PM
delete

Innersoul1
Aug 20, 2015, 9:48 PM
I think all of us would be more impressed if we got images like that.

The other thing that has been bugging me is that based on Nenshi's response it's like King has never talked with him about possibilities and ideas about funding which on something this big is ludicrous. It sets everyone up for a pissing show which on projects like this just ends up costing a lot of time and energy.

And isn't that just it? Something as simple as a comprehensive rendering would have really changed people's approach to this project.

With regards to your second point, you are spot on. We know that the song the city was singing prior to this announcement was that the city had NO money to offer. Yet this is what they came forward with?

B-side
Aug 20, 2015, 10:10 PM
I guess this ticket tax would be added to all events at the arena, not just Flames games?

That is my assumption, as well. But CS&E also owns the other teams playing out of the facilities and would result in their prices going up, too.

That leaves out concerts and events, though. Absent from KK's presentation was who will be managing the facilities.

B-side
Aug 20, 2015, 10:11 PM
Not knowing anything about how the NHL works, but I suspect the ticket tax is a way to finance the arena build without any affect on the NHL salary cap. Current Salary cap has the players receiving 57% of total league revenue with specific line items such as ticket revenues being included in the salary cap calculation. However I'm almost certain that ticket taxes and facility charges are excluded from the salary cap calculation.

If the above is in fact true. then in order to generate $10 in ticket revenue to go towards the stadium, the Flames would have to charge the equivalent of $23.25 with the players getting $13.25 and the Arena build project getting the remaining $10.

I guess the question for flames ticket holders do you want the City to handle the ticket tax or the flames. Chose Flames and you ticket prices increase exponentially more than if City was to finance.

Valid point. Thanks!

RyLucky
Aug 20, 2015, 10:18 PM
This seems like a very well thought out plan, Nick. Good job! I like it! One question though, how does EB Bow access N/S 14th?

Via 10th Ave.

NickFlood, Im liking your design 10x more than KKs. Using Millennium as a plaza is a good idea. They could share.

YYCguys
Aug 20, 2015, 10:58 PM
Via 10th Ave.

I was thinking the same thing, a bit out of the way, but definitely do-able!