View Full Version : New Downtown Calgary Arena
Socguy
Sep 3, 2015, 12:54 AM
Does anyone want to take a stab at guesstimating the total cost to the city if this project goes ahead?
I know it may be impossible since we don't even have a real drawing of the thing yet. Still, outside the construction costs we've got cleaning up the site, re-aligning bow, installing/upgrading infrastructure and so on.
Once we've got a rough idea of the total cost, we can move on to round two and decide which city projects need to be cancelled/postponed.
O-tacular
Sep 3, 2015, 1:23 AM
Does anyone want to take a stab at guesstimating the total cost to the city if this project goes ahead?
I know it may be impossible since we don't even have a real drawing of the thing yet. Still, outside the construction costs we've got cleaning up the site, re-aligning bow, installing/upgrading infrastructure and so on.
Once we've got a rough idea of the total cost, we can move on to round two and decide which city projects need to be cancelled/postponed.
I would say easily over a billion once you factor in the decontamination and the re-routing of Bow Trail. That said, those two things will need to be done at some point anyways. Calgary NEXT would push that timeline though and make the recouping ability of the land if a CRL is used much harder. IMO that is what the city should contribute and nothing else.
geotag277
Sep 3, 2015, 1:38 AM
I think the city should counter offer the proposal with a solid profit sharing plan, such that the city costs related to contamination clean up, and infrastructure surrounding the arena are covered by profit sharing, plus another couple hundred million on top of that to fund a future public use project (potentially something like ctrain expansion).
If the city's costs are covered and can reasonably expect this partnership to fund further public goods, I think the public would be all for it.
By the way, any reason why this arena seems to need prime waterfront real estate? It is a fully enclosed dome isn't it? I would much rather the waterfront section of bow either be public use or condos. Seems a total waste for this arena to take up so much prime real estate when people sitting in the arena don't really care / can't even see they are next to water.
Bigtime
Sep 3, 2015, 12:57 PM
Does anyone want to take a stab at guesstimating the total cost to the city if this project goes ahead?
Put me down for $1.375 Billion.
Edit: Whoops, I see you are asking for total cost to the city. My number is the whole thing, creosote clean-up included.
Total estimate: $780 mil.
Actual cost: $1.2 bil.
Because we all know this is going way over budget.
Socguy
Sep 3, 2015, 2:29 PM
By the way, any reason why this arena seems to need prime waterfront real estate? It is a fully enclosed dome isn't it? I would much rather the waterfront section of bow either be public use or condos. Seems a total waste for this arena to take up so much prime real estate when people sitting in the arena don't really care / can't even see they are next to water.
I totally agree. The more I think of it, the more I believe that West village is the wrong place for this thing. The stampede remains the most logical place for an arena. As you say, West Village is prime real estate and from what I can see, Calgary's existing plans for that location are superior.
Thanks everyone for your estimates. I know that money is eventually going to be spent to ready the site, but by going ahead with an arena project it forces the city's hand on when it spends the money. I also feel that by including an arena project, the city would limit it's ability to finance the rehabilitation of the site. I don't have a problem using an East Village style CRL for site prep purposes and I believe that it may even be possible to get provincial or federal help with the contamination cleanup in the long run but that becomes difficult if the purpose is to enable the construction of an arena.
MalcolmTucker
Sep 3, 2015, 2:42 PM
Would the Roughnecks use it too? Or would they be using the arena side?
For games the arena side, would be hard to fit a small lacrosse court into the field house. Of course you could do so with an alignment at one end of the bowl (like Regina once thought they would use the Riders Stadium for hockey when it still had a full roof) but it would be super awkward.
MalcolmTucker
Sep 3, 2015, 2:49 PM
By the way, any reason why this arena seems to need prime waterfront real estate? It is a fully enclosed dome isn't it? I would much rather the waterfront section of bow either be public use or condos. Seems a total waste for this arena to take up so much prime real estate when people sitting in the arena don't really care / can't even see they are next to water.
Because of shadowing you can't put high condos that close to the river, and if you are taking a bunch of the land for the stadium complex, but still need a similar property value to fulfill the vision of the CRL, it means more units on less land. You end up in a cycle of cheaper units further from the river to meet your optimization point. Plus we can't make more waterfront, but 50 years after this thing is built can sell condos on the site after it is torn down to offset the demolition costs! Think about how much it will be worth then to the city!
Also, I think the neighbourhood visioning they did they were trying to keep the costs as low as possible, otherwise people may start to think a road realignment to improve everything about the neighbourhood was a Flames project the Flames should pay for.
Tropics
Sep 3, 2015, 7:55 PM
By the way, any reason why this arena seems to need prime waterfront real estate? It is a fully enclosed dome isn't it? I would much rather the waterfront section of bow either be public use or condos. Seems a total waste for this arena to take up so much prime real estate when people sitting in the arena don't really care / can't even see they are next to water.
It has been pretty thoroughly discussed that the plan with either Bow Trail or the arena itself being right on the water is a waste and the arena should be stepped back to the south and Bow Trail should probably run underneath it to open up more space and allow a more continuous pedestrian experience.
That said, having the arena "close" to the waterfront and the pathway system will create huge potential for a waterfront "red mile" pedestrian orientated retail area that will be like nothing this city has ever had. Restaurants and pubs along the water with direct access to the pathway system and arena will have remarkable potential to become something totally new.
Being that close to the core and along the riverfront pathway system will likely see huge numbers of people walking from work to a waterfront restaurant, catching the game, and then grabbing a cab or the LRT home.
The stampede grounds cannot become what West Village has the potential to be with the arena built there.
That said, the arena should be built in the West Village, and the new stadium can go there too, but the field house being there as well begins to take up too much room. The field house should be built where McMahon Stadium currently stands. It would work better there close to the university and it would open up a lot more space in the WV not having the field house there.
I know that kind of kills the whole "sell" for Ken, but putting all 3 in that space is cramming too much into that area, at the expense of other things that also need to be built there such as pedestrian concourses, retail and restaurants, and some residential developments. It cannot be allowed to become a crammed sports complex that takes up all the space and allows nothing else to be built there. Building all 3 there will create compromises we should not be making.
nick.flood
Sep 3, 2015, 8:12 PM
delete
Tropics
Sep 3, 2015, 8:27 PM
The stadium is the fieldhouse is the stadium.
Hmm. Yeah, forget the tail end of that... I must have imagined seeing 3 buildings in some rough designs/discussions. :koko:
CalgaryAlex
Sep 3, 2015, 10:01 PM
Funny thing - the Saddledome is on river front property but the Elbow River frontage has been so thoroughly neglected by the Stampede that it feels like it isn't even there. There could have been much better integration with the Elbow on the Stampede grounds. Instead, it is either fenced off or faced with acres of parking lots or animal barns.
milomilo
Sep 3, 2015, 10:39 PM
Funny thing - the Saddledome is on river front property but the Elbow River frontage has been so thoroughly neglected by the Stampede that it feels like it isn't even there. There could have been much better integration with the Elbow on the Stampede grounds. Instead, it is either fenced off or faced with acres of parking lots or animal barns.
I wish we could just delete the Stampede. Imagine what we could do with all that wasted land!
McMurph
Sep 3, 2015, 11:43 PM
That said, having the arena "close" to the waterfront and the pathway system will create huge potential for a waterfront "red mile" pedestrian orientated retail area that will be like nothing this city has ever had. Restaurants and pubs along the water with direct access to the pathway system and arena will have remarkable potential to become something totally new.
It's a nice vision, but there is tendency to vastly overestimate the ability of an arena to transform an area. I'm not sure I can think of any arena district that is nearly as vibrant as what you describe. Some are downright dead. Having the Flames nearby has done pretty well nothing for the vibrancy of the east end of 17th or the viability of the retail at the base of Arriva.
Calgary is not a city that needs revitalization. A new arena would be nice, perhaps necessary, but I have no doubt that the WV would be a lot better neighbourhood if were given more time to develop and if the execution were left in the hands of the CMLC. Maybe the athletic facilities can be part of it, but they're not the critical thing that is going to make the area great.
CalgaryAlex
Sep 4, 2015, 3:32 AM
It's a nice vision, but there is tendency to vastly overestimate the ability of an arena to transform an area. I'm not sure I can think of any arena district that is nearly as vibrant as what you describe. Some are downright dead. Having the Flames nearby has done pretty well nothing for the vibrancy of the east end of 17th or the viability of the retail at the base of Arriva.
Calgary is not a city that needs revitalization. A new arena would be nice, perhaps necessary, but I have no doubt that the WV would be a lot better neighbourhood if were given more time to develop and if the execution were left in the hands of the CMLC. Maybe the athletic facilities can be part of it, but they're not the critical thing that is going to make the area great.
There is also the point brought up a number of pages ago, that revitalizing WV means taking investments away from East Village, Downtown, the Beltline, Westbrook, and any other parcel of land which really needs to be developed (think: along the existing LRT lines, and the upcoming need for investment beside a new line).
There is no shortage of land that can be redeveloped in this city (which won't cost the city hundreds of millions to prep for). Adding another huge area will just slow down "average" development patterns elsewhere.
That argument for the arena, as if that area is the worst in the city, is bunk... straight up garbage discussion point.
CalgaryAlex
Sep 4, 2015, 3:38 AM
I wish we could just delete the Stampede. Imagine what we could do with all that wasted land!
Yeah I don't even know what can be done there. The Stampede has an iron grip on that land. Early on, they promoted the removal of any real neighbours (Victoria Park; Ramsay is too far removed) who would have complained about the blight that sits across the street from them.
My hope is that the Railtown lands get developed, as well as more of Victoria Park and the bus barns, and maybe 20 years down the road, the Stampede is encouraged to improve their wasteland to better suit the (by then improved) community it sits in.
By the way, I rode through the new "Enmax Park" on the other side of the Elbow and I must say that it is a drastic improvement over the crap that was there before. That's a move in the right direction, but that area is so terribly disconnected from any population center that I can't see it being used all that much.
(Sorry to derail the thread!)
Bigtime
Sep 4, 2015, 1:13 PM
There is also the point brought up a number of pages ago, that revitalizing WV means taking investments away from East Village, Downtown, the Beltline, Westbrook, and any other parcel of land which really needs to be developed (think: along the existing LRT lines, and the upcoming need for investment beside a new line).
There is no shortage of land that can be redeveloped in this city (which won't cost the city hundreds of millions to prep for). Adding another huge area will just slow down "average" development patterns elsewhere.
That argument for the arena, as if that area is the worst in the city, is bunk... straight up garbage discussion point.
A very good point. Rob Taylor of Beltline communities has always been a little sore about how East Village is/was getting all this city help. Meanwhile Beltline is pretty much doing it on its own and while East Village is out there in the public proudly trumpeting 3 new residential towers under construction Beltline has 15 on the go.
So I don't think WV will hurt Beltline much, I dare say a critical mass has occurred there and it will keep going. But what it will hurt are places like Eau Claire and those close in TOD sites you mention like Westbrook.
All this talk of WV being an eyesore, I just don't get. Yeah it's a bunch of car dealership parking lots and the Greyhound station, but you can find much worse in the city.
West Village's time would come to redevelop no matter what, but it's hardly a blight that only CalgaryNext can save.
RyLucky
Sep 4, 2015, 1:51 PM
I wish we could just delete the Stampede. Imagine what we could do with all that wasted land!
The Riverwalk III will do more for creating a "year-round destination" than anything the Stampede has done. I hope the stampede decides to improve the north side of the Elbow too, if not create a path/park system all the way through.
That said, I think there is a great value to having an exhibition grounds downtown (or downtown-ish), but a lot could be done to make it more multimodal.
RyLucky
Sep 4, 2015, 1:53 PM
A very good point. Rob Taylor of Beltline communities has always been a little sore about how East Village is/was getting all this city help. Meanwhile Beltline is pretty much doing it on its own and while East Village is out there in the public proudly trumpeting 3 new residential towers under construction Beltline has 15 on the go.
So I don't think WV will hurt Beltline much, I dare say a critical mass has occurred there and it will keep going. But what it will hurt are places like Eau Claire and those close in TOD sites you mention like Westbrook.
All this talk of WV being an eyesore, I just don't get. Yeah it's a bunch of car dealership parking lots and the Greyhound station, but you can find much worse in the city.
West Village's time would come to redevelop no matter what, but it's hardly a blight that only CalgaryNext can save.
Nothing could be a bigger favour for the Beltline than fixing the EV, WV, and Vic Park.
Bigtime
Sep 4, 2015, 2:20 PM
Nothing could be a bigger favour for the Beltline than fixing the EV, WV, and Vic Park.
How so?
I will concede that East Village does spin off and help Vic Park (which is east Beltline technically). But the rest of it? The west end of Beltline seems to be chugging along pretty well without anything happening in West Village.
Perhaps the areas of Beltline sandwiched between 10th avenue and the CPR tracks will benefit from development right across from them, but Beltline is absolutely booming of its own accord.
Coldrsx
Sep 4, 2015, 2:22 PM
Related
Colby Cosh: Edmonton’s new arena has become a contrived symbol of hope
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/colby-cosh-edmontons-new-arena-has-become-a-contrived-symbol-of-hope
CorporateWhore
Sep 4, 2015, 3:21 PM
All this talk of WV being an eyesore, I just don't get. Yeah it's a bunch of car dealership parking lots and the Greyhound station, but you can find much worse in the city.
The biggest eye sore in WV (and Calgary in general) is the block of Pointe of View towers. Can we build the stadium there instead?
CalgaryAlex
Sep 4, 2015, 4:03 PM
Nothing could be a bigger favour for the Beltline than fixing the EV, WV, and Vic Park.
I don't know, I think WV and EV will benefit downtown way more than the Beltline. Especially when the two become "destinations" on either side of the core. Activity in those areas will create more movement through downtown, with increased activity spilling over as a result.
Never underestimate the power of the CPR tracks! ;)
fusili
Sep 4, 2015, 4:12 PM
There is also the point brought up a number of pages ago, that revitalizing WV means taking investments away from East Village, Downtown, the Beltline, Westbrook, and any other parcel of land which really needs to be developed (think: along the existing LRT lines, and the upcoming need for investment beside a new line).
There is no shortage of land that can be redeveloped in this city (which won't cost the city hundreds of millions to prep for). Adding another huge area will just slow down "average" development patterns elsewhere.
That argument for the arena, as if that area is the worst in the city, is bunk... straight up garbage discussion point.
A very good point. Rob Taylor of Beltline communities has always been a little sore about how East Village is/was getting all this city help. Meanwhile Beltline is pretty much doing it on its own and while East Village is out there in the public proudly trumpeting 3 new residential towers under construction Beltline has 15 on the go.
So I don't think WV will hurt Beltline much, I dare say a critical mass has occurred there and it will keep going. But what it will hurt are places like Eau Claire and those close in TOD sites you mention like Westbrook.
All this talk of WV being an eyesore, I just don't get. Yeah it's a bunch of car dealership parking lots and the Greyhound station, but you can find much worse in the city.
West Village's time would come to redevelop no matter what, but it's hardly a blight that only CalgaryNext can save.
The issue here is whether West Village will cannabilize demand from other similar locations (Beltline, East Village, Downtown West End, Eau Claire), if it will create additional demand beyond what already exists, or if it will attract much residential development at all. I am leaning towards the third option. Here are my thoughts
1. CalgaryNEXT will not induce any additional demand for urban condominium development beyond what already exists. Just to be clear, let's be careful not to overstate how much "urban style living" attracts population and labour to Calgary. More than anything it simply shifts growth from the suburbs to the centre city. I would argue that shift has already happened and the West Village will have only a marginal impact on that trend. This is not like Edmonton or other cities where urban growth has been stagnant for years and a stadium may (although I am not fully convinced) induce a shift of growth to the inner city. CalgaryNEXT will not create any sort of new trend in urban living, it will simply cannibalize the existing trend (if at all, see point 3).
In terms of creating an amenity that may attract residents from within the city, we already have opportunities to live near a stadium (Arriva, Guardian, Keynote, Sasso, Vetro etc), and a lot of vacant land still around the area, so even if there are more people who want to live close to hockey games, we are just moving them from east Beltline to west village.
2. What CalgaryNEXT will definitely not do is induce any additional net migration to this city. People don't move to cities for sports stadiums, at least not in any numbers that matter. People move for jobs, for lifestyle, for kids and for other opportunities. How many people move to a city because they have a nice stadium? So all we are doing is shifting growth around, so to me, a CRL makes no damn sense in this case.
3. West village does not offer much in terms of urban living than what already exists. Beltline is, and will continue to be, a much more attractive option as it has a whackload of existing amenities and existing residents. East Village already struggles to compete with Beltline, and it would be a more attractive option that West Village for quite some time. I don't think West Village will really attract more than a token amount of buyers, as most who prefer urban living will just choose Beltline, East Village, Eau Claire or West End instead. Why would you want to live in an area with a stadium that is empty most of the time, is surrounded by large roads, has no grocery store, and few shopping amenities when you can just move to Beltline?
MalcolmTucker
Sep 4, 2015, 4:56 PM
The only reason to do a CRL is citizens seem more comfortable using a CRL than spending through the main budget. Not really sure why, but I am fine with a CRL for that reason, along with the fact that it only has to be approved once by council for a multiyear flexible project where they can decide to change the type of benches without going back to council.
CalgaryAlex
Sep 4, 2015, 5:14 PM
Good arguments made there fusili. I think you nailed it.
Policy Wonk
Sep 5, 2015, 9:24 PM
I don't disagree with any of these points, but whatever form this new development takes it is a once in a generation or more opportunity to stamp out an enormous piece of urban blight, be that the West Village, Firestone, the Stampede Grounds or some unconsidered location east of MacLeod Trail.
I wouldn't bet much of anything that without an enormous external influence that any of those places will look much different fifty years from now.
That isn't to say I support significant subsidies to that end, I don't and in the case of the West Village would only support giving the wasteland away in exchange for a performance bond from the Flames and their partners to protect the city and fund the remediation in the event they abandoned the project.
I don't think it's residential potential really matters in the grand scheme of things. If it works out, well great. If it doesn't, meh. But people already buy condos in all sorts of awkward locations. The transit alone will click with some people, just like those stupid London condos that are in as bleak a location as anyone can imagine.
The issue here is whether West Village will cannabilize demand from other similar locations (Beltline, East Village, Downtown West End, Eau Claire), if it will create additional demand beyond what already exists, or if it will attract much residential development at all. I am leaning towards the third option. Here are my thoughts
1. CalgaryNEXT will not induce any additional demand for urban condominium development beyond what already exists. Just to be clear, let's be careful not to overstate how much "urban style living" attracts population and labour to Calgary. More than anything it simply shifts growth from the suburbs to the centre city. I would argue that shift has already happened and the West Village will have only a marginal impact on that trend. This is not like Edmonton or other cities where urban growth has been stagnant for years and a stadium may (although I am not fully convinced) induce a shift of growth to the inner city. CalgaryNEXT will not create any sort of new trend in urban living, it will simply cannibalize the existing trend (if at all, see point 3).
In terms of creating an amenity that may attract residents from within the city, we already have opportunities to live near a stadium (Arriva, Guardian, Keynote, Sasso, Vetro etc), and a lot of vacant land still around the area, so even if there are more people who want to live close to hockey games, we are just moving them from east Beltline to west village.
2. What CalgaryNEXT will definitely not do is induce any additional net migration to this city. People don't move to cities for sports stadiums, at least not in any numbers that matter. People move for jobs, for lifestyle, for kids and for other opportunities. How many people move to a city because they have a nice stadium? So all we are doing is shifting growth around, so to me, a CRL makes no damn sense in this case.
3. West village does not offer much in terms of urban living than what already exists. Beltline is, and will continue to be, a much more attractive option as it has a whackload of existing amenities and existing residents. East Village already struggles to compete with Beltline, and it would be a more attractive option that West Village for quite some time. I don't think West Village will really attract more than a token amount of buyers, as most who prefer urban living will just choose Beltline, East Village, Eau Claire or West End instead. Why would you want to live in an area with a stadium that is empty most of the time, is surrounded by large roads, has no grocery store, and few shopping amenities when you can just move to Beltline?
O-tacular
Sep 5, 2015, 11:45 PM
Good points PolicyWonk. I don't completely oppose CalgaryNext being in WV. I mostly oppose its riverfront placement and the funding being proposed. If KK and pals can make it work with land transfer and the city has to re-align Bow Trail then fine. The way it is now just rubs me all the wrong way.
Socguy
Sep 5, 2015, 11:48 PM
The issue here is whether West Village will cannabilize demand from other similar locations (Beltline, East Village, Downtown West End, Eau Claire), if it will create additional demand beyond what already exists, or if it will attract much residential development at all. I am leaning towards the third option. Here are my thoughts
1. CalgaryNEXT will not induce any additional demand for urban condominium development beyond what already exists. Just to be clear, let's be careful not to overstate how much "urban style living" attracts population and labour to Calgary. More than anything it simply shifts growth from the suburbs to the centre city. I would argue that shift has already happened and the West Village will have only a marginal impact on that trend. This is not like Edmonton or other cities where urban growth has been stagnant for years and a stadium may (although I am not fully convinced) induce a shift of growth to the inner city. CalgaryNEXT will not create any sort of new trend in urban living, it will simply cannibalize the existing trend (if at all, see point 3).
In terms of creating an amenity that may attract residents from within the city, we already have opportunities to live near a stadium (Arriva, Guardian, Keynote, Sasso, Vetro etc), and a lot of vacant land still around the area, so even if there are more people who want to live close to hockey games, we are just moving them from east Beltline to west village.
2. What CalgaryNEXT will definitely not do is induce any additional net migration to this city. People don't move to cities for sports stadiums, at least not in any numbers that matter. People move for jobs, for lifestyle, for kids and for other opportunities. How many people move to a city because they have a nice stadium? So all we are doing is shifting growth around, so to me, a CRL makes no damn sense in this case.
3. West village does not offer much in terms of urban living than what already exists. Beltline is, and will continue to be, a much more attractive option as it has a whackload of existing amenities and existing residents. East Village already struggles to compete with Beltline, and it would be a more attractive option that West Village for quite some time. I don't think West Village will really attract more than a token amount of buyers, as most who prefer urban living will just choose Beltline, East Village, Eau Claire or West End instead. Why would you want to live in an area with a stadium that is empty most of the time, is surrounded by large roads, has no grocery store, and few shopping amenities when you can just move to Beltline?
^^ :worship::worship::worship::worship:
I would go even further with the point that the city will likely need to use a CRL to prep the site for development similar to what they did in East Village. This will eliminate the ability to use a CRL for the construction of this facility. Even though I totally agree that this proposed facility will not have any stimulus effect. Experience from around North America has taught us they rarely do and it's even worse in this case as Calgary already has a downtown arena. Try as I might, I just can't square the circle that moving an arena from one side of downtown to the other equals a surge in development. It's a nice thought, but in the end, that's just seems like wishful thinking to me.
There's a simple reason West Village has not developed, it starts with contamination and ends with a spaghetti mess of roads. Fix that, and watch it go.
Policy Wonk
Sep 6, 2015, 3:35 AM
There's a simple reason West Village has not developed, it starts with contamination and ends with a spaghetti mess of roads. Fix that, and watch it go.
That's simplistic, there are brownfields in NYC that aren't economically viable for redevelopment even after their unprecedented boom and subsidies from the city, state and federal government.
Policy Wonk
Sep 6, 2015, 4:03 AM
Good points PolicyWonk. I don't completely oppose CalgaryNext being in WV. I mostly oppose its riverfront placement and the funding being proposed. If KK and pals can make it work with land transfer and the city has to re-align Bow Trail then fine. The way it is now just rubs me all the wrong way.
I'm not keen on the city funded field house, I just don't see much sense in a facility of that scale in that location as a public necessity.
I don't know how I feel about the river issue. Once you hit the Louise Bridge the river pathway on the south bank of the river is a pretty pathetic and alienating space and I'm not sure it's economically fixable anymore. If the arena was impeding a potentially contiguous Riverwalk I would probably feel more strongly about it.
The original Field House plan by the university seams to make more sense. I'd think the Uni could make good use of it.
Socguy
Sep 6, 2015, 2:47 PM
That's simplistic, there are brownfields in NYC that aren't economically viable for redevelopment even after their unprecedented boom and subsidies from the city, state and federal government.
How so? The one thing that I do have faith in is the CMLC. If they give the site the same treatment that they gave to East Village, I don't see any reason to doubt similar results. I will grant you that they should probably hold off on the West Village site for a couple years on account of the current economics of Alberta and East Village is almost totally sold to developers.
Tropics
Sep 6, 2015, 3:28 PM
The original Field House plan by the university seams to make more sense. I'd think the Uni could make good use of it.
I agree with that.
They do not "have" to both be built in the same area and it might make a lot more sense to build the arena in WV and do the field house up by the university.
ggopher
Sep 6, 2015, 5:45 PM
Combining the field house and stadium does create some efficiency, but there is little gained in combining it with the hockey arena. The stadium requires the most land, and will be used a lot less for football. I don't know if it makes sense to locate a field house downtown, most of those participants would prefer to drive. The stadium and field house should be located somewhere outside of downtown. The Arena will be used a lot more for Flames, Hitmen, concerts and other events so it makes a sense to located it near downtown.
suburbia
Sep 6, 2015, 5:54 PM
Combining the field house and stadium does create some efficiency, but there is little gained in combining it with the hockey arena. The stadium requires the most land, and will be used a lot less for football. I don't know if it makes sense to locate a field house downtown, most of those participants would prefer to drive. The stadium and field house should be located somewhere outside of downtown. The Arena will be used a lot more for Flames, Hitmen, concerts and other events so it makes a sense to located it near downtown.
That is too simplistic. Two (or three) pieces together allow efficiencies in infrastructure, from parking to washrooms to premier boxes that have visibility of all surfaces to potentially areas of the concourse. Additionally, what the field-house / covered stadia allow is large-scale events that the BMO centre gets, or rather, that the BMO centre cannot get. Placing these together with the arena further expand the types of events that can be landed, and so it actually satisfies some element of the convention centre needs (though granted, not completely). This is why the want for a very flexible arena (as an earlier video showing adjustments to various amphitheatre configurations demonstrated).
I'm not saying I like the proposal or that I do not like the proposal, but am pointing out the NIMBY'ish arguments against the philosophical idea of planting these together is rather uneducated.
Tropics
Sep 6, 2015, 9:41 PM
it actually satisfies some element of the convention centre needs
No it doesn't, and that type of ignorant comment is exactly the type of BS the mayor and aldermen use in arguments against Calgary getting a proper convention facility that has adequate space requirements for a city Calgary's size, and actually functions like an actual convention center and not an exhibition space with some meager catering ability.
Policy Wonk
Sep 6, 2015, 9:54 PM
How so? The one thing that I do have faith in is the CMLC. If they give the site the same treatment that they gave to East Village, I don't see any reason to doubt similar results. I will grant you that they should probably hold off on the West Village site for a couple years on account of the current economics of Alberta and East Village is almost totally sold to developers.
The problem with severely contaminated brownfields the world over is merely cleaning up the site and selling the land to a developer often doesn't equal profit. This isn't Manhattan or Central London we're taking about here.
If there is a deal to be had in which the city can unload their liability for this worthless land and secure it's remediation by the Flames and their partners, that would be a scenario where it would be very easy for perfect to be the enemy of good. If this development wherever it ultimately is built isn't leveraged to reshape one of these wastelands that will represent a tragically missed opportunity.
Socguy
Sep 6, 2015, 9:58 PM
I get what you're saying in that there are efficiencies and new options to be gained by combining them. That's certainly true.
Still, we have yet to give much consideration to the downsides of putting them together. As I think about it today, I'm starting to wonder about the parking requirements for such a facility. It's not inconceivable that there would be occasions when both sides are in use necessitating the movement of up to 50,000 people back and forth. Transit will play a big role but this place is still going to need parking and lots of it. Edmonton's arena is 5 minutes from 2 different transit lines and all sorts of downtown parking but there's still 5000+ stalls of parking going in adjacent to the arena. Granted these are not specifically for arena usage but they will be available. Back to Calgary: The problem this presents for the West Village is that every stall of (above ground) parking the complex puts in negatively affects the design and walkability of the neighborhood. I know that the CalgaryNEXT proposal doesn't show any parking in their fancy pictures but is this a realistic proposition? How would people feel about this thing if there was even 1000 stalls surrounding the stadium?
Issues like this may be overcome, but they should not be overlooked in the rush for synergy provided by a combined facility. Handled incorrectly, this proposal could wreck the potential for West Village. I'm even starting to revisit your idea of Firepark, if it's decided that the benefits of the combined facility are desirable enough. Though, I do agree with the earlier poster that arenas belong close to downtown.
Socguy
Sep 6, 2015, 10:24 PM
The problem with severely contaminated brownfields the world over is merely cleaning up the site and selling the land to a developer often doesn't equal profit. This isn't Manhattan or Central London we're taking about here.
If there is a deal to be had in which the city can unload their liability for this worthless land and secure it's remediation by the Flames and their partners, that would be a scenario where it would be very easy for perfect to be the enemy of good. If this development wherever it ultimately is built isn't leveraged to reshape one of these wastelands that will represent a tragically missed opportunity.
The point was that the reason that West Village was not developing on its own was because of contamination and messed up roads. If that was corrected then it wouldn't be a wasteland for long.
I fully agree that it will cost money to return it to a condition whereby developers will want it and the city will likely lose money doing so. This is the result of terrible management in the past and should be a warning to everyone who values development at all costs (SCREW THE ENVIRONMENT, JOBS!). If the Flames wish to clean up the land and fix/install infrastructure returning the land to a develop-able state then I'd be jumping up and down to fund their arena. Considering that they're asking they city for 3/4 of the funding just to build the complex I doubt that they'd be willing to take on the restoration of the land and the installation of the necessary infrastructure.
Personally, I feel that the city will have better luck securing funding to clean up the West village when they have a plan to present to other levels of government that doesn't entail the stench of public money funding a sporting franchise. But I could be wrong. Maybe the Province and the feds want to be associated with an arena/stadium.
Policy Wonk
Sep 6, 2015, 11:35 PM
I don't propose that any level of government fund the remediation in that scenario. The Flames et al are given the site in exchange for a performance bond which will be returned contingent on the remediation occurring. If they abandon the project the forfeited performance bond will be used by the city to conduct the remediation. Then the Flames can build their arena and their partners can build whatever else they like.
The proposal communicated in August, if it can even be called that yet, is in it's infantile stage. But if there truly is no "Plan B" and the Flames are adamant that they want to build there, well that gives the city a lot of leverage in getting rid of land that is nothing but a liability today and an enormous expense in the future before it can be anything else.
If such a deal could be made I think that would be a great deal for all concerned.
McMurph
Sep 7, 2015, 3:47 PM
How would people feel about this thing if there was even 1000 stalls surrounding the stadium?
There should be no surface lots surrounding the stadium.
I accept that if this thing gets built that there will be a few at first (much of the land right now is, after all, parking lots for the dealerships) but I would not accept an area plan that envisions or relies on surface parking at build out or builds any new stuff in the interim. A west end public parking structure (like Centennial or the parking authority's 9th Ave SE proposal) would be good and is inevitable... but even centennial only holds 1000.
Given the capacity of other downtown parkades at night and on the weekend and the proximity of the site to the end of the free fare zone there are plenty of options for drivers. I don't think parking is a big issue at all (except for game time congestion for folks in Sunalta).
suburbia
Sep 7, 2015, 8:58 PM
No it doesn't, and that type of ignorant comment is exactly the type of BS the mayor and aldermen use in arguments against Calgary getting a proper convention facility that has adequate space requirements for a city Calgary's size, and actually functions like an actual convention center and not an exhibition space with some meager catering ability.
Couple of points. You pulled out but one comment and railed against it, ignoring the rest.
Regarding this specific item, I said "some elements of". Yes, Mayor has said we're at a reasonable spot for a city our size, but that is more a comment about balance. There are indeed events that bypass Calgary on this front, though it doesn't make sense to build a stand along facility just for the few we miss and could have had. I'm saying the new complex, in some circumstance, could allow for a few of these to once again Calgary. I still agree with the mayor, that it would not be a primary reason for a mega facility, but it is not immaterial if it is a secondary result of a facility built primarily other purposes. I'm not see the complex drawings, so I'm unclear if there are other aspects that could be interesting to corporate clientelle such as meeting rooms and the like. Certainly a major amphitheatre would be of interest for some events, and yes, major conventions do often have exhibition elements on the sidelines.
Tropics
Sep 8, 2015, 1:43 AM
Trying to argue for a multi-use bastardized idea of a "convention space" like you propose just kills any chance of Calgary getting an actual properly functioning convention facility that a city this size should have. You and the mayor both seem to gloss over the positive economic and marketing value a adequate convention center can bring to a city, not only in convention dollars spent in the city, but long term economic growth by raising the status of the city to the visitors to such a facility. Cities with iconic convention centers tend to receive very positive benefits from those centers and stand out to all those who visit them.
suburbia
Sep 8, 2015, 2:20 AM
Trying to argue for a multi-use bastardized idea of a "convention space" like you propose just kills any chance of Calgary getting an actual properly functioning convention facility that a city this size should have.
You're attempting to pull me into a strawman IE into an argument that is far from the context of the original post I made. I was simply highlighting that joining facilities will undoubtedly yield some efficiencies, and potentially cover off "some" aspects of things Calgary is lacking.
If you've followed my posts on the convention discussion over the last few years, you'll know I'm far from against a larger convention space (though am not a fool that doesn't understand it needs to make economic sense).
Tropics
Sep 8, 2015, 3:56 AM
You're attempting to pull me into a strawman IE into an argument that is far from the context of the original post I made.
I am pretty specifically targeting this
it actually satisfies some element of the convention centre needs
If you want to suggest that it fills a potential need for more exhibition space that is fine. You claimed specifically it satisfies "some element of the convention centre needs" and what the Calgary Convention Centre actually does, and their need for additional space in their market is not served in the slightest by the arena facilities or the field house or any multi-use of that space for exhibitions.
It does not satisfy some elements of the convention centre needs. This proposal will effectively kill any chance of Calgary getting a proper Calgary Convention Centre expansion because some people actually believe what you wrote above. Without an actual Convention Centre expansion we will not actually be competitive in the corporate convention market and if this arena proposal gets partially sold as a substitute for a proper Convention Centre expansion you have effectively ended any chance of Calgary having a proper functioning convention facility of the appropriate size for the city.
I am not trying to pull you into a straw man argument, I am flat out telling you that people have worked hard to promote a much needed Calgary Convention Centre expansion in this city, the analysis and studies have supported an expansion for quite some time, and this proposal being sold off with such statements as you made will pretty much kill any chance of an actual convention center expansion for the foreseeable future.
suburbia
Sep 8, 2015, 6:46 PM
If you want to suggest that it fills a potential need for more exhibition space that is fine. You claimed specifically it satisfies "some element of the convention centre needs" and what the Calgary Convention Centre actually does, and their need for additional space in their market is not served in the slightest by the arena facilities or the field house or any multi-use of that space for exhibitions.
It does not satisfy some elements of the convention centre needs. This proposal will effectively kill any chance of Calgary getting a proper Calgary Convention Centre expansion because some people actually believe what you wrote above. Without an actual Convention Centre expansion we will not actually be competitive in the corporate convention market and if this arena proposal gets partially sold as a substitute for a proper Convention Centre expansion you have effectively ended any chance of Calgary having a proper functioning convention facility of the appropriate size for the city.
I am not trying to pull you into a straw man argument, I am flat out telling you that people have worked hard to promote a much needed Calgary Convention Centre expansion in this city, the analysis and studies have supported an expansion for quite some time, and this proposal being sold off with such statements as you made will pretty much kill any chance of an actual convention center expansion for the foreseeable future.
"some elements" does not mean "substitute for a proper Convention Centre expansion". I do hear what you're saying in context of potentially harpooning a true new CC, however, think the odds of a new CC in the next decade is slim to none no matter how you cut it.
We're not as far from each other as your Harper'esque wedge politics seems to be trying to demonstrate.
Reality is, much of this remains to be seen when we can look at detailed drawings. The West Village is among the only reasonable spots for a new convention centre, so if this gets plopped there and has so element whatsoever to serve that type of need, yeah, we're really quite stuck for a new CC facility (unless Eau Claire fails, and a CC can go there because the block of land is large enough).
Tropics
Sep 8, 2015, 9:58 PM
"some elements" does not mean "substitute for a proper Convention Centre expansion". I do hear what you're saying in context of potentially harpooning a true new CC
Good
however, think the odds of a new CC in the next decade is slim to none no matter how you cut it.
With this complex being built and the commentary by those proposing it and the way the city will view it I would think you are completely correct.
johnnybegaudreau
Sep 14, 2015, 4:20 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.
There's residence in the Promenade presinct. It's like a village concept so apartments on the second level above retail below.
Not moving Bowtrail takes away the capacity as well. Putting the stadium/fieldhouse there greatly reduces this.
MalcolmTucker
Sep 14, 2015, 4:27 PM
Oh, for sure it reduces the total number of residences. I just don't think it goes from 6-8000 units to 750 units.
red_179
Sep 15, 2015, 10:36 PM
Apparently Nenshi has met with a group of community leaders about a bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics. If this gains steam, CalgaryNext will be a big part of the bid.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-olympics-winter-bid-nenshi-1.3229574
suburbia
Sep 15, 2015, 10:51 PM
Apparently Nenshi has met with a group of community leaders about a bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics. If this gains steam, CalgaryNext will be a big part of the bid.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-olympics-winter-bid-nenshi-1.3229574
Yeah - now it is coming more into focus. Provincial and Federal support now also making more sense.
artvandelay
Sep 15, 2015, 10:54 PM
I would be behind an Olympic bid 100%. The legacy from 88' has enriched the city and served us very well but it's getting to the point where capital investment will be required to ensure these facilities remain top of class. Hosting another Olympics is a perfect excuse to do this while hosting a huge party.
Ferreth
Sep 16, 2015, 2:23 AM
Ugh, I would be 100% against an Olympic bid. More important things to spend money on, be in city, provincial, federal. '88 was the last Olympics of any kind to not be ridiculously overblown in terms of costs, and even that left us with some less that great public value for the dollar spent buildings.
For all the talking about what a great public resource this combi-arena is going to be, remember, about 1/3 of people don't give a crap about sports of any kind and I'd presume most of them would consider any public dollars spend on this a waste beyond economic stimulus or as a hosting facility, which it doesn't do well either way.
Bigtime
Sep 16, 2015, 12:55 PM
Ok folks, time to go out buy/take-out this book and give it a read. Then tell us if you think Calgary can do it right (such as Barcelona and LA did):
http://www.amazon.com/Circus-Maximus-Economic-Hosting-Olympics/dp/0815726511
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21645114-hosting-olympics-and-world-cup-bad-citys-health-just-say-no
MalcolmTucker
Sep 16, 2015, 3:21 PM
All up to the IOC, whether they let someone win the bid with a sub $5 billion budget.
Fuzz
Sep 16, 2015, 8:15 PM
Bid? I don't even think $5 billion is enough to cover the bribes these days....
suburbia
Sep 16, 2015, 8:22 PM
All up to the IOC, whether they let someone win the bid with a sub $5 billion budget.
I think they would, as it would help the trajectory they are attempting to telegraph. If you look at Toronto's PanAm Games, it was executed with smart solutions, and was quite different from Beijing or Sochi. Yet Toronto was seen extremely favourably.
Also, when you talk full budget, many things get thrown in there which are actually needed infrastructure pieces that are expedited. So you include things like the green line and you're talking serious dollars right away. You re-do Crowchild Bow Trail Memorial interchanges and that can be included. Suddenly the bid looks like $8-10B but is not all for flash in the pan items. West Village clean-up would be included now too, maybe, so province can pick it up and still save face as not an about turn, but rather an olympic item. That type of thing.
Oh - and the Oval needs much help.
MalcolmTucker
Sep 16, 2015, 8:28 PM
In a bid book, Green Line, Ring Road, maybe even international facilities would be mentioned. Not really sure how those costs would be accounted for in the bid. I would prefer not to include it in a role up number.
O-tacular
Sep 17, 2015, 12:30 AM
Ugh, I would be 100% against an Olympic bid. More important things to spend money on, be in city, provincial, federal. '88 was the last Olympics of any kind to not be ridiculously overblown in terms of costs, and even that left us with some less that great public value for the dollar spent buildings.
For all the talking about what a great public resource this combi-arena is going to be, remember, about 1/3 of people don't give a crap about sports of any kind and I'd presume most of them would consider any public dollars spend on this a waste beyond economic stimulus or as a hosting facility, which it doesn't do well either way.
While I'm not in favour of subsidizing the majority of this thing the way it's proposed your argument could just as easily be applied to things like public art. Most people don't care, so why bother?
Ferreth
Sep 17, 2015, 3:26 AM
While I'm not in favour of subsidizing the majority of this thing the way it's proposed your argument could just as easily be applied to things like public art. Most people don't care, so why bother?
If the talk was about spending 2 million, or even 20 million, I'd say fair point - but for 200 million, I'd hope we could get better than 50% of the public agreeing that this would be a worthy enhancement to the city. Speaking of art, I have heard little about how this space would work for concerts - would they be using the arena, field, or either depending on need? Would this now allow us to attract any potential act? That result would be an enhancement to the city I would be willing to throw some public dollars to.
DizzyEdge
Sep 17, 2015, 3:18 PM
Normally I'd say forget about it, re: Olympics, but if we can use existing facilities to greatly reduce the typical spend then I'd consider it
artvandelay
Sep 17, 2015, 4:39 PM
It's also important to note that many of our winter sports facilities (including the bobsleigh track and oval) are getting to the age where they are going to need some serious investment in order to remain top of class. The Olympics are a vehicle to achieve this.
Fuzz
Sep 17, 2015, 5:11 PM
Ski jumps are not up to new specifications either. There were also around 50 events in 1988, there are well over 100 now.
monocle
Sep 28, 2015, 7:05 PM
Did I just hear an allusion to the new barn on 960? Pretty sure Steinberg said something like "...new sports buildings...listen after 3" I probably am missing something, but curious where things are at as well.
suburbia
Sep 29, 2015, 1:02 AM
It's also important to note that many of our winter sports facilities (including the bobsleigh track and oval) are getting to the age where they are going to need some serious investment in order to remain top of class. The Olympics are a vehicle to achieve this.
Absolutely true. A Calgary Olympics will not be about re-using everything, rather, about upgrading but with smart solutions and not blowing away money like Beijing and Sochi. As one example, Oval as it is has great ice, but that's about it -> requires better entry, exit, air handling, restrooms, etc.
Socguy
Oct 7, 2015, 4:22 PM
comparison between Edmonton's Rogers place and the proposed CalgaryNext
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/a-tale-of-two-cities-comparison-between-rogers-place-and-proposed-calgary-arena-development
monocle
Nov 6, 2015, 2:34 PM
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/firm-hired-for-six-month-assessment-of-west-village-contamination
Neat then and now pics at the end of the article.
Socguy
Nov 7, 2015, 5:25 PM
^ It will be interesting to see if the Province can get Domtar to pay for the cleanup. I think it will be a longshot, but if they can it will have huge implications for all the other old abandoned polluted sites across the Province.
^ It will be interesting to see if the Province can get Domtar to pay for the cleanup. I think it will be a longshot, but if they can it will have huge implications for all the other old abandoned polluted sites across the Province.
Less than zero chance of that. Once the province accepted responsibility for the site, we were hooped. A decision that was clearly a political favour in its day.
bt04ku
Nov 8, 2015, 2:59 AM
Less than zero chance of that. Once the province accepted responsibility for the site, we were hooped. A decision that was clearly a political favour in its day.
Did the province accept responsibility or did they simply agree to put the onus on remediation on whoever develops the site? Becuase if I were the Flames and the city I would jump as quickly at the opportunity as possible to get this built if the province did the former or hold the company responsible.
MalcolmTucker
Nov 9, 2015, 6:14 AM
I think the successor companies have been bankrupt at least once and if they were carrying this liability on the books it would have been dealt with at one of the bankruptcies. Hence why it is worth it to see if there are any assets around that a liability like this would have had higher claim on, and whether you can reach through half a century to do that.
tomthumb2
Nov 9, 2015, 5:19 PM
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/mayors-office-proposes-multi-phase-analysis-of-flames-890-million-calgarynext-project
If you go by the few comments already, it looks like this will never fly... so long Flames?
McMurph
Nov 9, 2015, 5:27 PM
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/mayors-office-proposes-multi-phase-analysis-of-flames-890-million-calgarynext-project
If you go by the few comments already, it looks like this will never fly... so long Flames?
I wish people would stop implying that moving the Flames is either a serious option or something that the owners have ever suggested. Whether or not this proposal flies, the Flames will stay. If the owners want an arena they'll get one someplace, someday. It may not be CalgaryNext but it will be in Calgary.
milomilo
Nov 9, 2015, 5:39 PM
I wish people would stop implying that moving the Flames is either a serious option or something that the owners have ever suggested. Whether or not this proposal flies, the Flames will stay. If the owners want an arena they'll get one someplace, someday. It may not be CalgaryNext but it will be in Calgary.
If they do move, or threaten to move, why should we care? It would just prove these sports teams have no love for the city and do not deserve any 'patriotism'.
MalcolmTucker
Nov 9, 2015, 6:12 PM
If they do move, or threaten to move, why should we care? It would just prove these sports teams have no love for the city and do not deserve any 'patriotism'.
Eventually the existing stadium will change from being less than optimal to marginally functional, and if it uneconomic to stay, they will leave, or fold.
It would be like the Airport authority claiming Air Canada didn't have any Calgary pride if they refused to land without the airport runway being cleared of snow. It may not be a safety or function issue today - but it will be unless something is done.
In any case, the Flames are putting in $450 million plus operating in the proposed model as far as we have seen at the high level, so yeah, might we end up with the arena at a different place where it is cheaper to build? Maybe. I doubt they, or the city, or most citizens want to build at the Anderson TOD though.
McMurph
Nov 9, 2015, 7:06 PM
Eventually the existing stadium will change from being less than optimal to marginally functional, and if it uneconomic to stay, they will leave, or fold.
It would be like the Airport authority claiming Air Canada didn't have any Calgary pride if they refused to land without the airport runway being cleared of snow. It may not be a safety or function issue today - but it will be unless something is done.
In any case, the Flames are putting in $450 million plus operating in the proposed model as far as we have seen at the high level, so yeah, might we end up with the arena at a different place where it is cheaper to build? Maybe. I doubt they, or the city, or most citizens want to build at the Anderson TOD though.
The Flames could play in the Corral and be more profitable than a number of US teams. There has never been a serious suggestion that they would consider moving and they themselves have never brought it into the arena conversation.
MalcolmTucker
Nov 9, 2015, 7:12 PM
Yeah, they haven't. But that doesn't mean that maintaining the status quo is sustainable stretching out into the future.
I've said many times on this board, I just don't think these facilities can really support themselves outside of mega markets. There has been little to no evidence presented to show that they have, besides in Toronto, New York, London.
tomthumb2
Nov 10, 2015, 7:48 AM
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/flames-890-million-calgarynext-proposal-a-half-baked-proposal-says-nenshi
...doesn't look like it will ever see the light of day (if Nenshi has anything to do with it)
McMurph
Nov 10, 2015, 3:59 PM
I don't read Nenshi's comments as being obstructionist, he's just calling it like it is and asking for careful and transparent study. The Flames' proposal as unveiled earlier this year was definitely "half-baked" -- the contrast between the scale of the project and the professionalism of the proposal was ridiculous.
The city isn't the thing that is holding this back. The scale of the project, the nature of the site and the Flames apparent desire to squeeze the public for as much as they can get is going to draw it out for a very long time. Due process demands it.
H.E.Pennypacker
Nov 10, 2015, 4:40 PM
I don't read Nenshi's comments as being obstructionist, he's just calling it like it is and asking for careful and transparent study. The Flames' proposal as unveiled earlier this year was definitely "half-baked" -- the contrast between the scale of the project and the professionalism of the proposal was ridiculous.
The city isn't the thing that is holding this back. The scale of the project, the nature of the site and the Flames apparent desire to squeeze the public for as much as they can get is going to draw it out for a very long time. Due process demands it.
I think most of us around here saw King's presentation and plan as something that was done half-assed.
Glad Nenshi is standing firm .. There's a long way to go on this one.
MalcolmTucker
Nov 10, 2015, 5:39 PM
Yeah, the council's report and recommendations are pretty good. Need to go in eyes open. I don't think one should see any action short of cutting a cheque as being negative on the project. There is a long road ahead.
fusili
Nov 10, 2015, 5:59 PM
re: moving the team.
Sports teams have to locate in cities where there is a market for their sport. We aren't building any new cities in north America and Calgary is a good hockey market (ranked 13th I believe). The NHL expansion into SunBelt cities was pretty much a failure. There is a reason the largest markets are in large northern cities (Toronto, NYC, Montreal, Chicago, Vancouver, Boston, Philly, in that order). Yeah, someone will leave the 13th largest NHL market to relocate to where, Oklahoma?
tomthumb2
Nov 10, 2015, 6:21 PM
re: moving the team.
Sports teams have to locate in cities where there is a market for their sport. We aren't building any new cities in north America and Calgary is a good hockey market (ranked 13th I believe). The NHL expansion into SunBelt cities was pretty much a failure. There is a reason the largest markets are in large northern cities (Toronto, NYC, Montreal, Chicago, Vancouver, Boston, Philly, in that order). Yeah, someone will leave the 13th largest NHL market to relocate to where, Oklahoma?
After what happened in Winnipeg and Quebec City, I wouldn't rule anything out. Cities like Seattle, Kansas City, Vegas and even Quebec City have new arenas or are planning to build them.
I'm not saying the Flames are going to move but it's not an impossibility either. Flames and the city need to get on same page soon though, or this is going to drag on forever and then that relocate conversation may just come up.
suburbia
Nov 10, 2015, 6:35 PM
In any case, the Flames are putting in $450 million plus operating in the proposed model.
How do you figure $450M? I thought it was $200M. $250M would be from ticket purchasers to repay a multi-decade no interest loan from the city, in addition to the city coughing up that additional $1B to implement completely including land cleaning and modest road adjustments. Regarding Flames covering operating, what would the rent be on a billion dollar facility, or are they wanting that waived also, in effect, a massive operating budget subsidy forever?
MalcolmTucker
Nov 10, 2015, 6:45 PM
A ticket tax lowers the price the flames can charge for events and still sell an optimum number of tickets. Customers pay the ticket tax, but the Flames bear the economic burden of it. The tax can always be set at a level so it covers the financing costs.
artvandelay
Nov 10, 2015, 6:49 PM
How do you figure $450M? I thought it was $200M. $250M would be from ticket purchasers to repay a multi-decade no interest loan from the city?
This has been explained several times, but I'll do it again.
The market will only bear a certain price for hockey tickets, based on your typical supply and demand factors. Tickets will be set at this price regardless of whether a ticket levy exists or not. Hence, it is wholly a contribution by ownership.
The terms and source of this loan have not been decided, given how early we are into the process. As stated at the initial press conference, this could be a commercial loan or it could be sourced from the City (likely at the ACFA rate). I'm not sure where you heard that that a no interest loan is being asked for.
Fuzz
Nov 10, 2015, 7:14 PM
So why do they need to call it a "ticket tax" if the ticket prices aren't going to change?
MalcolmTucker
Nov 10, 2015, 7:26 PM
So why do they need to call it a "ticket tax" if the ticket prices aren't going to change?
Keeping it out of the flames hands means no GST on it, no income tax. By rolling it in, you'd have to charge rent on the stadium, and pass it through, with all the problems that causes.
artvandelay
Nov 10, 2015, 8:44 PM
Keeping it out of the flames hands means no GST on it, no income tax. By rolling it in, you'd have to charge rent on the stadium, and pass it through, with all the problems that causes.
Also, it would be included in hockey related revenue for NHL salary cap purposes. I believe this is why financing has been structured this way for new arenas in the recent past.
MalcolmTucker
Nov 10, 2015, 8:51 PM
Good point! Hadn't considered that.
Socguy
Nov 10, 2015, 8:53 PM
How do you figure $450M? I thought it was $200M. $250M would be from ticket purchasers to repay a multi-decade no interest loan from the city, in addition to the city coughing up that additional $1B to implement completely including land cleaning and modest road adjustments. Regarding Flames covering operating, what would the rent be on a billion dollar facility, or are they wanting that waived also, in effect, a massive operating budget subsidy forever?
If they follow the Edmonton model which I expect they will try, they're just counting the rent they would otherwise pay to use the facility as their 200M contribution.
MalcolmTucker
Nov 10, 2015, 9:04 PM
I assume that the capital contribution is like up front rent. They get free rent from the city right now.
Socguy
Nov 10, 2015, 9:22 PM
I assume that the capital contribution is like up front rent. They get free rent from the city right now.
I wouldn't assume that. It's one of the things that will need to be hashed out in negotiations if the project proceeds.
MalcolmTucker
Nov 10, 2015, 11:12 PM
Not that it really matters in the end of the day. The issues with the ticket tax and capital contribution are tiny compared to the CRL, environmental cleanup and field house.
suburbia
Nov 11, 2015, 12:41 AM
This has been explained several times, but I'll do it again.
The market will only bear a certain price for hockey tickets, based on your typical supply and demand factors. Tickets will be set at this price regardless of whether a ticket levy exists or not. Hence, it is wholly a contribution by ownership.
The terms and source of this loan have not been decided, given how early we are into the process. As stated at the initial press conference, this could be a commercial loan or it could be sourced from the City (likely at the ACFA rate). I'm not sure where you heard that that a no interest loan is being asked for.
How much will the ticket tax be - $5 per ticket? That would be 50,000,000 tickets with zero interest, but with interest, maybe double that. How many seasons to cover off 100,000,000 tickets?
PPAR
Nov 11, 2015, 4:54 AM
To address your question: 50 000 000 tickets / 20 000 seats in arena / 42 NHL home games = 59 years to collect at 0 interest! Of course there would be other events, but I would suggest that the ticket tax needs to be substantially more than $5.
MalcolmTucker
Nov 11, 2015, 3:26 PM
Further back in this thread we went into how many events would have to happen. The below also doesn't include field house professional sports events.
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.
suburbia
Nov 12, 2015, 3:35 AM
To address your question: 50 000 000 tickets / 20 000 seats in arena / 42 NHL home games = 59 years to collect at 0 interest! Of course there would be other events, but I would suggest that the ticket tax needs to be substantially more than $5.
You really think fans would accept a $50 ticket tax, so that a return on loan of 10 years (including interest) could be achieved??? Guess that's why the sports group wants the city to back that loan, eh'?
Sands
Nov 12, 2015, 3:58 AM
You really think fans would accept a $50 ticket tax, so that a return on loan of 10 years (including interest) could be achieved??? Guess that's why the sports group wants the city to back that loan, eh'?
People will pay for even $50 tax if Flame doesnt suck.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.