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

suburbia
Dec 22, 2016, 6:51 PM
True, but I believe Rylucky was referring to an arena, not stadium. The Stamps only play 10 or 11 home games a year, compared to how many for the Flames? Much more important to consider the arena's placement within walking distance to a mainstreet.

I didn't want to put words in his mouth - he did say stadium. Additionally, the touchstone for new construction was CalgaryNEXT, a combined stadium and arena. That needs 1.) space, and 2.) if not done extremely carefully, can really create a massive deadzone in and of itself given the footprint and logistics in the immediate surrounding.

Luk_o
Dec 22, 2016, 8:38 PM
True, but I believe Rylucky was referring to an arena, not stadium. The Stamps only play 10 or 11 home games a year, compared to how many for the Flames? Much more important to consider the arena's placement within walking distance to a mainstreet.

Absolutely. The CFL is an unpopular niche league - As a long time fan, I wish this wasn't the case, but it is the reality. And they play only a handful of games as you alluded to. The thing about moving the stadium downtown, is that you would also need to include some significant amount of surface parking to maintain the tailgating and lot activities that is a massive component of the culture / game day experience in Calgary. As surface parking should be minimized as much as possible anywhere for downtown development, the CalgaryNext proposal should ax the stadium / field house component as the Arena doesn't require the same requirements for extensive surface parking. Keep the Stamps playing at McMahon with some renos, and it would be fine. The popularity and elements surrounding the tenants do not warrant significant funding from the public for a large scale development downtown. Arena is completely different. Much more public interest and benefit for investment downtown.

Calgarian
Dec 22, 2016, 8:54 PM
Absolutely. The CFL is an unpopular niche league - As a long time fan, I wish this wasn't the case, but it is the reality. And they play only a handful of games as you alluded to. The thing about moving the stadium downtown, is that you would also need to include some significant amount of surface parking to maintain the tailgating and lot activities that is a massive component of the culture / game day experience in Calgary. As surface parking should be minimized as much as possible anywhere for downtown development, the CalgaryNext proposal should ax the stadium / field house component as the Arena doesn't require the same requirements for extensive surface parking. Keep the Stamps playing at McMahon with some renos, and it would be fine. The popularity and elements surrounding the tenants do not warrant significant funding from the public for a large scale development downtown. Arena is completely different. Much more public interest and benefit for investment downtown.

The only thing I would say you are missing is the lost revenue from concerts and events at McMahon due to noise complaints from the surrounding communities...

esquire
Dec 22, 2016, 9:28 PM
Absolutely. The CFL is an unpopular niche league - As a long time fan, I wish this wasn't the case, but it is the reality.

:???:

Then how do you explain the fact that it is one of the best attended professional sports leagues in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues) and one of the top TV draws in Canada?

CalgaryAlex
Dec 22, 2016, 9:40 PM
Absolutely. The CFL is an unpopular niche league - As a long time fan, I wish this wasn't the case, but it is the reality. And they play only a handful of games as you alluded to. The thing about moving the stadium downtown, is that you would also need to include some significant amount of surface parking to maintain the tailgating and lot activities that is a massive component of the culture / game day experience in Calgary. As surface parking should be minimized as much as possible anywhere for downtown development, the CalgaryNext proposal should ax the stadium / field house component as the Arena doesn't require the same requirements for extensive surface parking. Keep the Stamps playing at McMahon with some renos, and it would be fine. The popularity and elements surrounding the tenants do not warrant significant funding from the public for a large scale development downtown. Arena is completely different. Much more public interest and benefit for investment downtown.

I believe this was discussed earlier in the thread, but McMahon's problems are at the concourse level. There is more than enough room to push these areas out and double the space. Build new bathroom facilities and more vendor spots. Construct proper protection from wind and rain on the concourse level, improve the connection between sides. Could even add seating to the end zones, although I don't think this is necessary. It's not hard to re-imagine McMahon as a much-improved facility.

Do it one side at a time (while maximizing offseason time) and the facility never needs to close.

MasterG
Dec 22, 2016, 10:09 PM
I believe this was discussed earlier in the thread, but McMahon's problems are at the concourse level. There is more than enough room to push these areas out and double the space. Build new bathroom facilities and more vendor spots. Construct proper protection from wind and rain on the concourse level, improve the connection between sides. Could even add seating to the end zones, although I don't think this is necessary. It's not hard to re-imagine McMahon as a much-improved facility.

Do it one side at a time (while maximizing offseason time) and the facility never needs to close.

+1.

I never quite understood the rationale behind a McMahon replacement being so integrated into the arena plan. McMahon is dilapidated but can be vastly improved with limited investment. As others mentioned, the economics and support for the arena is vastly different than a stadium that only sees a few dozen events a year, many without a need for much seating at all.

I get it that the Flames ownership would love the easiness of a single location so they can run things more integrated, but that doesn't seem like enough rationale on it's own to ask for another few dozen acres of prime downtown land in addition to an arena (which has vastly different location criteria and economic throughput).

Can someone enlighten me to why they need to be combined?

MalcolmTucker
Dec 22, 2016, 10:18 PM
Shared back of house space, and training space. Shared built in TV production areas. Combined on site box-office and retail.

tomthumb2
Dec 22, 2016, 10:29 PM
I believe this was discussed earlier in the thread, but McMahon's problems are at the concourse level. There is more than enough room to push these areas out and double the space. Build new bathroom facilities and more vendor spots. Construct proper protection from wind and rain on the concourse level, improve the connection between sides. Could even add seating to the end zones, although I don't think this is necessary. It's not hard to re-imagine McMahon as a much-improved facility.

Do it one side at a time (while maximizing offseason time) and the facility never needs to close.

IMO the debate isn't whether or not McMahon could be improved - of course it's possible but is that enough to bring in the younger fans now and in the future?

Currently, I have seasons tickets but I can't give them to my son and his friends. Yet when he sees Regina's or Winnipeg's new stadiums on TV he's like, "I'd sure like to see a game there".

Having said that, I don't think there's enough of an appetite for a new stadium here - even when the Stamps are good they still play second fiddle to the Flames so I fully expect we'll end up with some kind of renos at McMahon and we'll just have to live with that.

esquire
Dec 22, 2016, 10:42 PM
Having said that, I don't think there's enough of an appetite for a new stadium here - even when the Stamps are good they still play second fiddle to the Flames so I fully expect we'll end up with some kind of renos at McMahon and we'll just have to live with that.

Why can't there be both? Winnipeg is half your city's size and we managed to get a new NHL rink and CFL stadium built.

MalcolmTucker
Dec 22, 2016, 10:56 PM
Why can't there be both? Winnipeg is half your city's size and we managed to get a new NHL rink and CFL stadium built.

Because people in Calgary tend to figure that the tax revolt types in Calgary are a much higher percentage of the population here than they actually are, and hence try not to burn political capital on a stadium when the city is building a $5 billion transit line and in the middle of a similar cost roadway.

Calgarian
Dec 23, 2016, 12:56 AM
Shared back of house space, and training space. Shared built in TV production areas. Combined on site box-office and retail.

Exactly, combining these will save them money. Plus, building 1 really big building is always cheaper than building 2 big buildings...

Luk_o
Dec 23, 2016, 1:03 AM
:???:

Then how do you explain the fact that it is one of the best attended professional sports leagues in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues) and one of the top TV draws in Canada?

Both of these statements don't account for much when we're talking public interest in a demographic as large as Calgary, and for people that actually will come out and pay to watch a CFL game live, and utilize a stadium in Calgary. The Stampeders had a perfect home record this year, were by far the best team in the CFL regular season and didn't sell out a single game. With a couple exceptions (Rider match-up, Labor Day), they didn't come close. Of course the economy had a play in this, but this isn't unusual for past years as well. The team with the largest metro in the country behind its name has dismal attendance. The Grey Cup didn't sell out, even after practically giving away tickets. Aside a few markets in Canada, the CFL is unpopular, or people are indifferent to it on average. BUT there is a very passionate following by the small percentage who do like it. I'm by no means saying that it is irrelevant or anything along those lines.

tomthumb2
Dec 23, 2016, 1:10 AM
FYI: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgarynext-project-on-pause-says-ken-king

From this you'd have to assume they'll just do some kind of lame upgrades to McDump

Luk_o
Dec 23, 2016, 1:12 AM
The only thing I would say you are missing is the lost revenue from concerts and events at McMahon due to noise complaints from the surrounding communities...

Valid point. Hard to come to a solution given its location. All I can say is that the problem exists as it stands now. It will continue to have the same scrutiny from the community for concert events after any reno is done.

tomthumb2
Dec 23, 2016, 1:22 AM
Both of these statements don't account for much when we're talking public interest in a demographic as large as Calgary, and for people that actually will come out and pay to watch a CFL game live, and utilize a stadium in Calgary. The Stampeders had a perfect home record this year, were by far the best team in the CFL regular season and didn't sell out a single game. With a couple exceptions (Rider match-up, Labor Day), they didn't come close. Of course the economy had a play in this, but this isn't unusual for past years as well. The team with the largest metro in the country behind its name has dismal attendance. The Grey Cup didn't sell out, even after practically giving away tickets. Aside a few markets in Canada, the CFL is unpopular, or people are indifferent to it on average. BUT there is a very passionate following by the small percentage who do like it. I'm by no means saying that it is irrelevant or anything along those lines.

You nailed it - although I think attendance would be better here if we actually had a professional grade stadium instead of expanded high school stands.

DLLB
Dec 23, 2016, 1:24 AM
FYI: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/calgarynext-project-on-pause-says-ken-king

From this you'd have to assume they'll just do some kind of lame upgrades to McDump

McDump. Exactly! It is a disgrace to the city. :slob:

bt04ku
Dec 23, 2016, 1:31 AM
Can someone enlighten me to why they need to be combined?

Because then they city is getting an arena AND a stadium for the price of just one building. And the city will own it after, so really the city is getting a world class building for nothing. Hell, when you factor in the money the Flames are putting in the owners are basically paying the city to own it. [/Ken King]

They don't NEED to be combined but the Flames would really, really like it if they were because then they can make even more money with a more efficient operation. When you're hoping to get public money to do it, you might as well aim high and hope nobody asks these questions.

CrossedTheTracks
Dec 23, 2016, 3:06 AM
You nailed it - although I think attendance would be better here if we actually had a professional grade stadium instead of expanded high school stands.

Impossible to know this in advance of course, but Winnipeg's experience doesn't provide strong support for this.

New stadium average attendance per game, each season 2013-2016: 30,637.1 - 28,314.1 - 26,745.9 - 25,935.8

Old stadium, each season 2000-2012: 25,259.4 - 27,033 - 27,559.7 - 27,225 - 24,218.4 - 24,317.2 - 26,987.8 - 27,701 - 27,150.8 - 25,720 - 26,083.2 - 29,558.7 - 27,981.1

A nice little bump in 2013 and 2014 (new stadium smell!), but 2015 and 2016 were firmly inside recent historical norms.

If the Stamps were to get an indoor stadium, they could probably expect to have an easier sell to fair-weather fans, especially for the autumn games. On the other hand, ticket prices are bound to be more expensive, so you'll lose a few price-sensitive fans in the process.

(Data source: https://stats.cfldb.ca/team/winnipeg-blue-bombers/attendance/2016/ and similar web pages for each year.)

Luk_o
Dec 23, 2016, 4:33 AM
Impossible to know this in advance of course, but Winnipeg's experience doesn't provide strong support for this.

New stadium average attendance per game, each season 2013-2016: 30,637.1 - 28,314.1 - 26,745.9 - 25,935.8

Old stadium, each season 2000-2012: 25,259.4 - 27,033 - 27,559.7 - 27,225 - 24,218.4 - 24,317.2 - 26,987.8 - 27,701 - 27,150.8 - 25,720 - 26,083.2 - 29,558.7 - 27,981.1

A nice little bump in 2013 and 2014 (new stadium smell!), but 2015 and 2016 were firmly inside recent historical norms.

If the Stamps were to get an indoor stadium, they could probably expect to have an easier sell to fair-weather fans, especially for the autumn games. On the other hand, ticket prices are bound to be more expensive, so you'll lose a few price-sensitive fans in the process.

(Data source: https://stats.cfldb.ca/team/winnipeg-blue-bombers/attendance/2016/ and similar web pages for each year.)

No doubt a better stadium would improve attendance. Realistically, I think you would still hover around a solid 35k mark on average in Calgary.

esquire
Dec 23, 2016, 5:03 AM
Impossible to know this in advance of course, but Winnipeg's experience doesn't provide strong support for this.

New stadium average attendance per game, each season 2013-2016: 30,637.1 - 28,314.1 - 26,745.9 - 25,935.8

Old stadium, each season 2000-2012: 25,259.4 - 27,033 - 27,559.7 - 27,225 - 24,218.4 - 24,317.2 - 26,987.8 - 27,701 - 27,150.8 - 25,720 - 26,083.2 - 29,558.7 - 27,981.1

A nice little bump in 2013 and 2014 (new stadium smell!), but 2015 and 2016 were firmly inside recent historical norms.

It's more complicated than whether a new venue draws fans or not... Bomber attendance at IGF was hindered by an abysmal team which has tested the patience of the fanbase.

But that said, Bomber revenues were more than 50% higher in 2015 vs. the last season at the old stadium in 2012. (The Bombers release their numbers as a community owned team.) This is pretty consistent with what we've seen in the NHL, where the current buildings generally have only marginally larger seating capacities than the buildings that were replaced throughout the 90s and 00s, yet revenues are far higher. I mean, if it's strictly a question of per-game attendance, then the Oilers could have just stayed at Rexall Place for all the difference that Rogers Place makes in that regard.

McMurph
Dec 23, 2016, 5:18 AM
I recently went to a Barcelona game at Camp Nou -- 99,000 people and extremely limited facilities. Couldn't even have a beer in the stands. Put a good product (and a proper sport) on the field and people will fill a shitty stadium to see it. If you have a good enough team the stadium becomes iconic despite itself (like the old Forum in MTL). It's interesting that two of the most boring sports in the world (american football and baseball*) seem to be completely dependent on glitzing out the consumer experience with gigantic screens and gourmet food... except in places like Boston where it's all about atmosphere and history.

I'd be happy with a better stadium, in part because I'd love to see Calgary get an MLS team and some international football action in the future. I don't mind the Stamps or the CFL, but they don't really need a palace and a palace isn't going to suddenly make them the Riders or the Cowboys in terms of community importance.

*please let's not debate the merit of various sports. I'm just defining boring on a purely personal grounds, plus the metric of how much time the stupid ball is actually moving.

CrossedTheTracks
Dec 23, 2016, 3:42 PM
It's more complicated than whether a new venue draws fans or not... Bomber attendance at IGF was hindered by an abysmal team which has tested the patience of the fanbase.

Of course it's more complicated than "new stadiums cause attendance increases". But when Luk_o says "No doubt a better stadium would improve attendance", and tomthumb2 says "I think attendance would be better here if we actually had a professional grade stadium".... well hey, there's a testable hypothesis.

And of course me looking at Winnipeg's example is, oh, 9 yards short of an analysis, it's very difficult to find examples in the CFL that will prove that point. Toronto and Hamilton very recently moved into smaller venues. I'm not sure Montreal's experience is easily transferred anywhere else (and even if you wanted to... well... McMahon's attendance, on its worst days, is still higher than Molson's capacity).

CalgaryNEXT proposes a smaller venue than McMahon, so you're going to cut the top off of the best-selling games. Probably compensated by better attendance on crappy-weather games, but that's just guesswork.

Will these new or smaller venues make for "better atmosphere", "better revenue/costs", or "better whatever-you-want-to-argue"? Go ahead and make the argument. I'm just commenting on the "increased attendance" claim. Frankly, I wish I'd found otherwise...

esquire
Dec 23, 2016, 3:55 PM
^ Based on the scorn that SSP forum members have for McMahon, it certainly seems like a reasonable possibility... even in places where new stadiums were built (Winnipeg, Regina, Hamilton), while there was a general acknowledgment that the old ones were shabby and outdated, the old venues weren't really cited as a reason why people stayed away in the same way that McMahon appears to be. The old stadiums just had a ton of deferred maintenance and an almost total lack of any sort of revenue streams beyond basic seating, which is what led to their replacement.

suburbia
Dec 23, 2016, 6:00 PM
I recently went to a Barcelona game at Camp Nou -- 99,000 people and extremely limited facilities. Couldn't even have a beer in the stands. Put a good product (and a proper sport) on the field and people will fill a shitty stadium to see it. If you have a good enough team the stadium becomes iconic despite itself (like the old Forum in MTL). It's interesting that two of the most boring sports in the world (american football and baseball*) seem to be completely dependent on glitzing out the consumer experience with gigantic screens and gourmet food... except in places like Boston where it's all about atmosphere and history.

You are bang on. The primary reason for new facilities is to boost non-sports events, which actually make the "entertainment group" ownership more money than the Flames (even in the Saddledome). The angle has always been, get the city to pay under the guise of sports, and then use the super low lease and/or advantageously had facility to make the real money - on entertainment, food, beer, parking, sponsorships.

The old stadiums just had a ton of deferred maintenance and an almost total lack of any sort of revenue streams beyond basic seating, which is what led to their replacement.

Precisely the reason the entertainment companies who own the teams and run the shows should pay a higher proportion of stadium / arena costs. It is really less about the sports.

mytwocents
Dec 23, 2016, 10:29 PM
I would like to see a new hockey stadium moved 2 blocks north so it could be right beside the new LRT station. But honestly new stadiums aren't what attract attendance. Taylor Field in Regina was always crappy and in the 90s it was far from selling out but guess what, the team got better the play improved and more people showed up.

I would rather see a game in an average stadium where ticket prices are cheaper than in a new glitzy stadium where I can order sushi and craft beer but really I just want a hot dog and beer.

UofC.engineer
Dec 24, 2016, 1:47 AM
+1.

I never quite understood the rationale behind a McMahon replacement being so integrated into the arena plan. McMahon is dilapidated but can be vastly improved with limited investment. As others mentioned, the economics and support for the arena is vastly different than a stadium that only sees a few dozen events a year, many without a need for much seating at all.

I get it that the Flames ownership would love the easiness of a single location so they can run things more integrated, but that doesn't seem like enough rationale on it's own to ask for another few dozen acres of prime downtown land in addition to an arena (which has vastly different location criteria and economic throughput).

Can someone enlighten me to why they need to be combined?

Good post! I'd be more gung ho about a new arena and stadium if it didnt involve chewing up riverfront land in west village. It's almost a pity we don't have a giant empty lot sitting on old industrial land in the outskirts of downtown...larger than west village of course.

Also, are we going to see the owners lobbying government for money for new facilities every 30-40 years? Once the Saddledome and McMahon are bulldozed what can we expect to see happen to the land? Potential redevelopment?

GORDBO
Dec 24, 2016, 3:56 AM
Impossible to know this in advance of course, but Winnipeg's experience doesn't provide strong support for this.

New stadium average attendance per game, each season 2013-2016: 30,637.1 - 28,314.1 - 26,745.9 - 25,935.8

Old stadium, each season 2000-2012: 25,259.4 - 27,033 - 27,559.7 - 27,225 - 24,218.4 - 24,317.2 - 26,987.8 - 27,701 - 27,150.8 - 25,720 - 26,083.2 - 29,558.7 - 27,981.1

A nice little bump in 2013 and 2014 (new stadium smell!), but 2015 and 2016 were firmly inside recent historical norms.

If the Stamps were to get an indoor stadium, they could probably expect to have an easier sell to fair-weather fans, especially for the autumn games. On the other hand, ticket prices are bound to be more expensive, so you'll lose a few price-sensitive fans in the process.

(Data source: https://stats.cfldb.ca/team/winnipeg-blue-bombers/attendance/2016/ and similar web pages for each year.)


The main reason people are staying away from I G F. is not only because of their record as of late, but mostly due to the inefficiant transportation routes getting to and from the stadium. Construction is underway on a BRT line, but wont be in operation for another 3+ years. Another downside keeping fans at home watching on tv, is the narrow concourse. It's comfortable moving around with 27,000, but when it does sell out [33,500] it becomes almost impossible to move around before/half time/after the game. I used to attend most games per season, now I'm down to 1-2, and thats mostly because of free tickets.

RyLucky
Dec 24, 2016, 4:32 AM
I didn't want to put words in his mouth - he did say stadium. Additionally, the touchstone for new construction was CalgaryNEXT, a combined stadium and arena. That needs 1.) space, and 2.) if not done extremely carefully, can really create a massive deadzone in and of itself given the footprint and logistics in the immediate surrounding.

I meant both the stadium and arena. I think 50 years ago when McMahon was being planned things were very different, and the University benefits from having facilities, so I don't regret that it was there for this part of Calgary's history, but for the next part - If it is to move - Downtown is the best option.

ZeDgE
Dec 24, 2016, 4:34 AM
I recently went to a Barcelona game at Camp Nou -- 99,000 people and extremely limited facilities. Couldn't even have a beer in the stands. Put a good product (and a proper sport) on the field and people will fill a shitty stadium to see it. If you have a good enough team the stadium becomes iconic despite itself (like the old Forum in MTL). It's interesting that two of the most boring sports in the world (american football and baseball*) seem to be completely dependent on glitzing out the consumer experience with gigantic screens and gourmet food... except in places like Boston where it's all about atmosphere and history.

I'd be happy with a better stadium, in part because I'd love to see Calgary get an MLS team and some international football action in the future. I don't mind the Stamps or the CFL, but they don't really need a palace and a palace isn't going to suddenly make them the Riders or the Cowboys in terms of community importance.

*please let's not debate the merit of various sports. I'm just defining boring on a purely personal grounds, plus the metric of how much time the stupid ball is actually moving.

No offence to Calgary sports fans (i'm one of them) but we are 'filthy casuals" to put it bluntly, compared to football fans in Europe. They would stand the whole game if they had to.

We are fickle fans here and need the comforts and modern conveniences. The Stamps are proof of this, best team in the league, crap stadium with crap facilities and games did not sell out.

bap1989
Jan 3, 2017, 3:48 PM
Good post! I'd be more gung ho about a new arena and stadium if it didnt involve chewing up riverfront land in west village. It's almost a pity we don't have a giant empty lot sitting on old industrial land in the outskirts of downtown...larger than west village of course.

Also, are we going to see the owners lobbying government for money for new facilities every 30-40 years? Once the Saddledome and McMahon are bulldozed what can we expect to see happen to the land? Potential redevelopment?

When I see posts like this I always wonder what better use riverfront land could have. Sure there is money to be made selling the land to condo developers but to me that ends up limiting public use of the land as evidenced by all the condos along the gated condos along the riverfront now.

Surely there won't be another commercial center if the new Eau Claire proposal ever goes ahead, so what's wrong with throwing down a big arena/stadium to draw even more people to the riverfront.

Rollerstud98
Jan 3, 2017, 6:41 PM
When I see posts like this I always wonder what better use riverfront land could have. Sure there is money to be made selling the land to condo developers but to me that ends up limiting public use of the land as evidenced by all the condos along the gated condos along the riverfront now.

Surely there won't be another commercial center if the new Eau Claire proposal ever goes ahead, so what's wrong with throwing down a big arena/stadium to draw even more people to the riverfront.



My thoughts exactly, I don't see any issue with having venues that will attract 10's of thousands to the river front and allow them to actually enjoy it rather than having to look at a bunch of ugly condo towers with their balconies protruding all the way to the top :yuck:

suburbia
Jan 3, 2017, 6:57 PM
No offence to Calgary sports fans (i'm one of them) but we are 'filthy casuals" to put it bluntly, compared to football fans in Europe. They would stand the whole game if they had to.

We are fickle fans here and need the comforts and modern conveniences. The Stamps are proof of this, best team in the league, crap stadium with crap facilities and games did not sell out.

And the other aspect of it is the overall demographic. Fancy new stadium will mean more expensive tickets, and a further deterioration of the youth and families at games. It is not about the games any more, but about the corporate deals that can be had. Sports in north america, for the most part, are a failure when thinking at this level.

Bigtime
Jan 3, 2017, 7:24 PM
When I see posts like this I always wonder what better use riverfront land could have. Sure there is money to be made selling the land to condo developers but to me that ends up limiting public use of the land as evidenced by all the condos along the gated condos along the riverfront now.

Surely there won't be another commercial center if the new Eau Claire proposal ever goes ahead, so what's wrong with throwing down a big arena/stadium to draw even more people to the riverfront.

My thoughts exactly, I don't see any issue with having venues that will attract 10's of thousands to the river front and allow them to actually enjoy it rather than having to look at a bunch of ugly condo towers with their balconies protruding all the way to the top :yuck:

Over the course of a year what percentage of time would an arena/stadium bring people to the area versus residential buildings with retail and an attractive riverfront? I'm guessing the latter would do more for vibrancy in an area than the sports facility.

Definitely planning must be better to eliminate the "gated community" feel like those condos in the Eau Claire area, I'd say East Village is doing a good job showing how we can keep the riverfront area open for public use and retail while residential is close at hand.

Rollerstud98
Jan 3, 2017, 7:40 PM
Plan the venues properly and you can have 300+ events a year. I will always be against condo towers though as I just find them so ugly.

mytwocents
Jan 3, 2017, 8:05 PM
Good post! I'd be more gung ho about a new arena and stadium if it didnt involve chewing up riverfront land in west village. It's almost a pity we don't have a giant empty lot sitting on old industrial land in the outskirts of downtown...larger than west village of course.

We already have land 2 blocks north of where the current stadium but I don't know who owns it. An arena could fit there quite nicely and be tied in easily with the future green line.

Bigtime
Jan 3, 2017, 8:09 PM
The parking lots north of the Saddledome right up to 12th avenue are owned by the Stampede, and this is most likely where the new arena will go.

Rollerstud98
Jan 3, 2017, 8:30 PM
Who currently gets the concession revenues at Flames games? I think it is the Stampede but I may be wrong. If it is the Stampede I could see the Flames ownership not wanting to be on their grounds just for this. That is a lot of money every night. Reason I think it is Stampede is because you look at the Flames revenue and even with larger overall crowds for the season they usually bring in less money by factors of millions.

MalcolmTucker
Jan 3, 2017, 8:39 PM
The Flames have a facility wide lease, have for at least 18-20 years. The Stampede has never owned the facility.

Cage
Jan 3, 2017, 9:32 PM
We already have land 2 blocks north of where the current stadium but I don't know who owns it. An arena could fit there quite nicely and be tied in easily with the future green line.

The Parking lots are owned and controlled by Calgary Exhibition and Stampede (CES).

However immediately to the east is two blocks partly owned by CES and partly owned by the City. Further there are several longstanding agreements on the land such that redevelopment is complicated under any scenario. For example, there is a halfway house on 13th Avenue SW that is required to be relocated under any redevelopment scenario. The redevelopment must include the cost of new facilities.

The parking lots north of the Saddledome right up to 12th avenue are owned by the Stampede, and this is most likely where the new arena will go.

Further expanding on the land ownership North of 11 Avenue. This area is owned and controlled by Remington family/group of companies. This is where the Railtown redevelopment is planned once the East Village area is completed. Further, the Railtown area is currently under the East Village CRL and therefore any CRL proposal for the arena cannot use the Railtown lands.

One possible scenario to back room finance the CalgaryNext Plan B site is for the city to cover the Railtown land contribution to the existing East Village CRL, thereby allowing the Plan B site to utilize a new CRL for East Victoria Park. Its backroom because the City would never press release the fact they took on an additional $150 million debt to release Railtown/Victoria Park from the East Village CRL.

Who currently gets the concession revenues at Flames games? I think it is the Stampede but I may be wrong. If it is the Stampede I could see the Flames ownership not wanting to be on their grounds just for this. That is a lot of money every night. Reason I think it is Stampede is because you look at the Flames revenue and even with larger overall crowds for the season they usually bring in less money by factors of millions.

The Scotiabank Saddledome is owned by the Calgary Saddledome Foundation. In turn the Calgary Saddledome Foundation turn over management to CSEG for $1.5 million per annum. The Saddledome foundation is incorporated by City of Calgary under the AB Societies Act.

The concessions are controlled by CSEG under management agreement from the Saddledome Foundation. The same management team for Saddledome retail also operates McMahon, although front line employees rarely operate at both sites.

CES gets to nominate one person onto the Saddledome Foundation board. Likewise, CSEG gets to nominate one board member onto the Saddledome Foundation. Common ground between the Saddledome Foundation and CES is found mostly at the City of Calgary. City of Calgary gets to nominate 3 members to each board, plus indirectly the City of Calgary gets to nominate other directors because the City has significant representation other non-profit organizations like Parks Foundation, Hockey Canada, etc.

The concession revenue also gets put through a washer ownership structure so that the NHLPA only gets a limited amount for their cut. Concession revenues from NHL games are part of the revenue sharing agreement that is at the heart of the collective bargaining agreement between NHL and NHLPA.

Here is a good hypothetical example. I own the NHL team. My sister owns exclusive rights to the concession stand for $100 per game. The concessions make about $200 per game and Sister is allowed to keep anything beyond $100 per game. I charge my sister the equivalent to $50 per game to live in the basement of my house. I walk away with $150/game but only give $50 to the players under the 50/50 revenue sharing deal.

UofC.engineer
Jan 3, 2017, 10:03 PM
When I see posts like this I always wonder what better use riverfront land could have. Sure there is money to be made selling the land to condo developers but to me that ends up limiting public use of the land as evidenced by all the condos along the gated condos along the riverfront now.

Surely there won't be another commercial center if the new Eau Claire proposal ever goes ahead, so what's wrong with throwing down a big arena/stadium to draw even more people to the riverfront.

I was hoping the West Village riverfront could emulate what has been built in East Village. A large public space that integrates into the surrounding buildings. Building a stadium by the river is kind of like building a wall. Although, to be fair to you, it is a step up from what there now.

craner
Jan 4, 2017, 4:42 AM
When I see posts like this I always wonder what better use riverfront land could have. Sure there is money to be made selling the land to condo developers but to me that ends up limiting public use of the land as evidenced by all the condos along the gated condos along the riverfront now.

Surely there won't be another commercial center if the new Eau Claire proposal ever goes ahead, so what's wrong with throwing down a big arena/stadium to draw even more people to the riverfront.
I agree, I don't see how an arena/stadium/feildhouse is a bad use for one section of riverfront land. I think it would be fine.

suburbia
Jan 4, 2017, 4:44 PM
I agree, I don't see how an arena/stadium/feildhouse is a bad use for one section of riverfront land. I think it would be fine.

So flipping the question around, what value is riverfront to a stadium-type project? Will it have attendees looking out over the beautiful vistas? If there is no value to the project, why are we insisting it be by the water?

craner
Jan 4, 2017, 8:33 PM
I'm not insisting it has to be by the water. I just don't think it's a bad use of riverfront if it does end up by the water.

McMurph
Jan 4, 2017, 9:18 PM
It is definitely not the best use of riverfront. That stretch of river from about 20th to 14th is the least pleasant and least natural part of the bow in Calgary (I'm speaking as someone who is regularly on it as well as beside it). It's almost canalized with the levees on both sides and has no virtually no natural riparian environment. Some of that is due to the roads and some to the previous remediation, but whatever goes there will have to look at fixing the river itself in addition to the riverfront.

A stadium could make it worse in two ways: 1) not providing the impetus or money to fix it; 2) casting the whole thing in shadow. There are few stadiums or arenas in the world that I know of that are in any way a draw when an event is not on. Most create street fronts or plaza settings that people actively avoid. Do build one in the west village beside an awesome urban river (the Bow rocks) would require a delicate hand, a lot of money, and the will to prioritize the river. I'm sure it could be done. I'm in no way confident that the Flames are the organization to do it.

Backing a stadium onto a transcontinental railway on the other hand...

McMurph
Jan 4, 2017, 9:22 PM
as an addendum, moving westbound bow from the river was one of the key pieces of the original area plan. King said it was fine where it was. That would be a huge lost opportunity and it's fairly good sign that King doesn't give a shit about the river.

craner
Feb 10, 2017, 2:21 AM
They're about to discuss Calgary Next on the FAN 960 radio if anyone is interested.
It's related to how it ties into a 2026 Olympic bid.

suburbia
Feb 10, 2017, 3:39 PM
They're about to discuss Calgary Next on the FAN 960 radio if anyone is interested.
It's related to how it ties into a 2026 Olympic bid.

I have heard two angles regarding Murray Edwards taking Rona Ambrose on an ocean vacation last month. The first was that he was pursuing getting her on board for direct Federal support for building the arena complex, either as part of an Olympics package, or otherwise. While Rona is not running for federal leadership, she is the interim leader and has massive sway within the party (if she were not well respected within the CPC, she would not have been given the interim leadership role). Of course the longer term play would be that the CPC may win back the leadership of the country (though that is a long ways out and is not clear) OR at a minimum would not oppose a Liberal move to support the Olympics (and they've been working with the Federal Liberals, Kent Hehr and others, for some time also). The second was that while the objective of public money for the arena was the same, but that it was part of a growing push within the provincial PC party to have an alternative to Jason Kenney (whose roots were Reform). It might be late in the game (not sure) but the buzz is that Edwards has been pushing for Rona to take on Kenney provincially. Kenney has warts, but he would be more difficult to extract money for an arena from. Remember that the more conservative one is, the less likely public funds flow to projects that benefit individuals/companies. CNRL, as many will know, is among the most politically CPC/PC aligned Calgary companies (and the company's original response to the NDP win, as well as Edwards' personal move of tax dollars to the UK, are both demonstrative of how much they are partisan). None of the above should be a shocker as dabbling has been modus operandi (and some will recall photos and engagement between Flames owners, Gary Bettman and Jim Prentice previously). What might be a surprise to some is how these strategic operations work, and years ahead of execution.

speedog
Apr 1, 2017, 4:15 PM
Well Ken King has raised the ante, build the Flames an arena or they'll just move - link (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/ken-king-calgary-flames-arena-next-1.4050989). Most likely this will be a prominent issue what with the upcoming municipal election, good timing Ken.

Hallsy's Toupee
Apr 1, 2017, 4:38 PM
Hey Calgarians, don't worry - if there's a 2026 Winter Olympics bid in the works, I wouldn't rule out a convey of Brinks trucks full of federal and provincial cash for a new arena and stadium.

KoolKool
Apr 1, 2017, 5:30 PM
i love brinks truck . lol

milomilo
Apr 1, 2017, 5:43 PM
Well Ken King has raised the ante, build the Flames an arena or they'll just move - link (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/ken-king-calgary-flames-arena-next-1.4050989). Most likely this will be a prominent issue what with the upcoming municipal election, good timing Ken.

See? Why do people care if a travelling circus moves because the city won't pay for their tent? I'll never understand why people have loyalty to sports teams, when they have no loyalty for the city they happen to be based in.

Meikkhaell
Apr 1, 2017, 6:24 PM
Personally I don't believe the Flames' players want to leave. They seem pretty integral to our city, don't they? And a city with a metro population of 1.5~ million, steadily growing, shouldn't be a city one wants to leave. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have strong belief this Ken King guy should get a pole shoved up his ass and make HIM leave. Him stirring up this negativity and having the audacity to threaten Calgarians whilst we have just overcome a recession, is mind boggling to me. I'm sure he's well-payed enough that he can contribute a large portion of his wealth to this project if he's so heavily attached to it, otherwise he should keep to himself. City council has discussed and reviewed ideas on several arena designs and locations, and this bastard is so blinded by his own whimsical fantasy, he seems he'll do whatever it takes to make his a reality. Classic "my-way or the high-way." Literally.
And yet, his arena design doesn't even seem to be that functional. Having a similar capacity to the Saddledome on the arena portion, and (imho) looking like a broken sandwich, this CalgaryNEXT design seems to provide little for neither the fans nor the franchise.
And that's not to mention the ridiculous cost of the project, as well as cleanup that has to be made.

The only one who should be leaving Calgary is King. :koko:

suburbia
Apr 1, 2017, 6:53 PM
Well Ken King has raised the ante, build the Flames an arena or they'll just move - link (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/ken-king-calgary-flames-arena-next-1.4050989). Most likely this will be a prominent issue what with the upcoming municipal election, good timing Ken.

Feeding bullies never works. If they want to leave, let them leave.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 1, 2017, 7:22 PM
Hey Calgarians, don't worry - if there's a 2026 Winter Olympics bid in the works, I wouldn't rule out a convey of Brinks trucks full of federal and provincial cash for a new arena and stadium.

That is not how that works. Out of existing pots for a new arena? Maybe. But extra special new money? Would be a huge change of policy. The feds picking up the majority of security costs would be a large contribution on its own.

There would likely be some money for other venues, but as those would not have been built otherwise, they are not in the 'fungible, all money is equal no matter where it is spent' category.

Socguy
Apr 1, 2017, 11:40 PM
Page 2 from the owners handbook... threaten to move. Good timing too, right after the flames clinch a playoff spot.

I view this as an empty threat.

Best information we have suggests the Flames are highly profitable in the 'dome (Won't open the books so don't know exact numbers). So where could they go to do better? Quebec city? Hamilton? If they're such great landing spots why have teams like the Coyotes not jumped at the chance? Besides the league wants to balance both conferences so probably not out east. Las Vegas just got an expansion team so they're out. Maybe Seattle? Could they do better there? Doubtful.

Even if they did take there ball and go elsewhere, there's at least a dozen teams in the NHL who would instantly improve their bottom line by moving into the Saddledome as-is.

In conclusion: Empty threat designed to frighten the gullible into allowing billionaire owners to line their pockets with public money.

milomilo
Apr 1, 2017, 11:55 PM
Page 2 from the owners handbook... threaten to move. Good timing too, right after the flames clinch a playoff spot.

I view this as an empty threat.

Best information we have suggests the Flames are highly profitable in the 'dome (Won't open the books so don't know exact numbers). So where could they go to do better? Quebec city? Hamilton? If they're such great landing spots why have teams like the Coyotes not jumped at the chance? Besides the league wants to balance both conferences so probably not out east. Las Vegas just got an expansion team so they're out. Maybe Seattle? Could they do better there? Doubtful.

Even if they did take there ball and go elsewhere, there's at least a dozen teams in the NHL who would instantly improve their bottom line by moving into the Saddledome as-is.

In conclusion: Empty threat designed to frighten the gullible into allowing billionaire owners to line their pockets with public money.

Sadly, there's enough morons in this city that will fall for it.

McMurph
Apr 2, 2017, 4:18 AM
Ken King is an asshole and a buffoon. I'm surprised the rest of the organization tolerates his approach.

Corndogger
Apr 2, 2017, 4:22 AM
Ken King is an asshole and a buffoon. I'm surprised the rest of the organization tolerates his approach.

Why would you think he's saying this without the owners' preapproval?

O-tacular
Apr 2, 2017, 6:58 PM
Everything about this threat is ridiculous. For one thing what would they do with the Stamps? Suppose they take their toys and run off to an American city or even a Canadian one what would they do with their other franchises? The whole point is they own all the teams in the city. If the Stamps stayed here and the Flames left they'd still be stuck in McMahon. As for the Roughnecks that adds even another layer as I'm not sure the distribution of teams in that league. It's empty posturing / Trumpian bullying.

craner
Apr 2, 2017, 7:22 PM
I will say I'm surprised Nenshi has been so aggressive with his anti-arena stance. He definitely comes off to me as not wanting this project to happen at all and he is happy if it doesn't.

Cage
Apr 2, 2017, 7:33 PM
(1) Personally I don't believe the Flames' players want to leave. They seem pretty integral to our city, don't they? And a city with a metro population of 1.5~ million, steadily growing, shouldn't be a city one wants to leave.

(2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have strong belief this Ken King guy should get a pole shoved up his ass and make HIM leave. Him stirring up this negativity and having the audacity to threaten Calgarians whilst we have just overcome a recession, is mind boggling to me.

(3) I'm sure he's well-payed enough that he can contribute a large portion of his wealth to this project if he's so heavily attached to it, otherwise he should keep to himself.

(4) City council has discussed and reviewed ideas on several arena designs and locations, and this bastard is so blinded by his own whimsical fantasy, he seems he'll do whatever it takes to make his a reality. Classic "my-way or the high-way." Literally.

(5) And yet, his arena design doesn't even seem to be that functional. Having a similar capacity to the Saddledome on the arena portion, and (imho) looking like a broken sandwich, this CalgaryNEXT design seems to provide little for neither the fans nor the franchise.

(6) And that's not to mention the ridiculous cost of the project, as well as cleanup that has to be made.

(1) Current batch of NHL players have no affiliation with the city they are currently billeted. Iginla left Calgary and has played couple cities since his departure. Gaudreau wanted to be a franchise player until he recently figured out there is no salary premium attached to the unofficial designation where as being a highly sought after player willing to be the hired gun has a premium salary.

(2) I get that most of Calgary is super pissed the Flames have pulled the leave town trump card. However, what other argument can be presented against the No public money side? Both parties need to move beyond their opening positions if a compromise is to be reached.

It is true that if the city continues to deny CSEG, eventually the Flames will leave town.

(3) The entire wealth of Ken King would only pay for 1-2% of the new arena complex.

What is needed from the City is to get off the gravy train of getting 100% of the property tax dollars from assets that are productive only 30-50% of the year. Golf courses, stadiums, arenas, etc. all should have market valuation adjustments for the amount of use in a given year.

(4) Point of correction, but city council has only ever discussed the CalgaryNext proposal. Only thing city administration has ever floated is the idea of relocation to Victoria Park (Plan B), but even then they were just spit-balling suggested locations.

Ken King is paid to put forward the agenda of Calgary Sports and Entertainment Group (CSEG). That is his "one job" to do. He is the go between for all stakeholder groups.

(5) The difference between a smaller arena/stadium and larger building is in the cheap seats. However costs and complexity rise exponentially for the larger building. So if an extra 2000 seats are desired by the fan base, they must be willing to accept much higher cheap seat costs. To put into perspective, $35 for press level seats would rise to $50-60.

(6) My viewpoint on the cleanup costs for West Village is that they are not commercially viable under any scenario.

Just like Dale Hodges sent councillors a bunch of emails concerning Highland Park Golf Course redevelopment, so to will a retired Nenshi be emailing a future council regarding West Village clean up. FOr the records, Dale Hodges sent council emails stating that Highland Park was repeatedly brought up and each conclusion is that the valley and river is not commercially viable for development because costs to fix slope and drainage are too high.

bt04ku
Apr 2, 2017, 7:34 PM
I will say I'm surprised Nenshi has been so aggressive with his anti-arena stance. He definitely comes off to me as not wanting this project to happen at all and he is happy if it doesn't.

He's aggressively anti-CalgaryNEXT. Which makes sense, because it's a terrible deal proposed in a terrible way.

UofC.engineer
Apr 2, 2017, 9:25 PM
Well Ken King has raised the ante, build the Flames an arena or they'll just move - link (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/ken-king-calgary-flames-arena-next-1.4050989). Most likely this will be a prominent issue what with the upcoming municipal election, good timing Ken.

Haha! Maybe if the Flames had won more than one cup we could take King's words a little more seriously.

It is different when owners threaten to move a dynasty, as opposed to the lovable losers.

Design-mind
Apr 2, 2017, 9:44 PM
I find this whole situation a little on the ludicrous side. Here is Ken King as well as Gary Bettman threatening Calgary because of the arena we currently use. Both Ken and Gary are business men who have made the game more of a business than a sport. Everything is business to these men which I am okay with. The part that burns me is when it is time to spend their own money, then they turn in to whiny little babies who need government help. I am not opposed to them getting government help, but they should be laying down the lion share since they have been taking it from us in ticket sales over the many years of support. This city has shown support even during the times the Flames were not earning their keep, which you do not see in most other cities in the franchise.

Rollerstud98
Apr 3, 2017, 1:35 AM
What is really lost in all this is how much the players themselves and the teams give back to cities through charities and the like. Sure not all players donate $10 million to the childrens hospital like PK but players do give a lot back to the community that most on here probably never see because of being more fortunate than those who receive.

I don't advocate threatening to move though. Very frustrating.

milomilo
Apr 3, 2017, 2:56 AM
What is really lost in all this is how much the players themselves and the teams give back to cities through charities and the like. Sure not all players donate $10 million to the childrens hospital like PK but players do give a lot back to the community that most on here probably never see because of being more fortunate than those who receive.

I don't advocate threatening to move though. Very frustrating.

It's not lost, it's irrelevant. Building arenas using public money at vast cost, so that a corporation can vastly overpay its employees who might give a portion of that money back to a charity which could maybe, possibly, probably not benefit Calgarians is an incredibly inefficient way to create public good using our money.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 3, 2017, 4:36 AM
We can either subsidize the current arena without an NHL tenant (city at least in the 90s said this way more than supporting an NHL tenant, was around $9 million then, going from memory), or subsidize a new one. Eventually the Saddledome will need more than just the yearly maintenance, and what then? Go from missing some concerts to missing most concerts? Put in a couple hundred million to keep it up? Put in $400m to build a concert focus facility that the city still needs to subsidize?

Is that mandatory renovation 10 years off or 20 years off? Does it really matter?

Unless the city is willing to go without an arena, there will inevitably be yearly subsidies and periodic large capital spends on a large concert facility.

The city can make similar investments in an arena that is good for an NHL tenant as well, and everyone benefits. That one side benefits more is irrelevant - there is what is it - $400 million, $450 million on the table from the ownership group? The city still benefits by likely having to invest less over time.

speedog
Apr 3, 2017, 6:00 AM
It's not lost, it's irrelevant. Building arenas using public money at vast cost, so that a corporation can vastly overpay its employees who might give a portion of that money back to a charity which could maybe, possibly, probably not benefit Calgarians is an incredibly inefficient way to create public good using our money.

So toss out the alternative you think would work as well if not better for creating public good using our money.

stamps
Apr 3, 2017, 6:12 AM
Haha! Maybe if the Flames had won more than one cup we could take King's words a little more seriously.

It is different when owners threaten to move a dynasty, as opposed to the lovable losers.

Like the New York Islanders or the Saskatchewan Oilers ???

Fuzz
Apr 3, 2017, 12:27 PM
What is really lost in all this is how much the players themselves and the teams give back to cities through charities and the like. Sure not all players donate $10 million to the childrens hospital like PK but players do give a lot back to the community that most on here probably never see because of being more fortunate than those who receive.

I don't advocate threatening to move though. Very frustrating.
I'd be happier if they donated nothing, and used that money to pay for the arena and government money was used to cover the loss of donations to pay for things government should be paying for.

Everyone involved in professional sports makes way to much money to be coming cap in hand to municipalities with thin budgets. After seeing what Rogers Centre looks like, including all the cushy players areas, training centres etc, maybe the players SHOULD be paying for this massive upgrade? They are the ones who get to enjoy it.

Here's an idea. A Players tax. 10% of yearly salary goes to the arena. That's, what, 7 million a year? A good start.

milomilo
Apr 3, 2017, 1:07 PM
So toss out the alternative you think would work as well if not better for creating public good using our money.

I'm OK with some public money being used, but I was responding to the argument that we should be happy spending money on an arena because the employees will be so well paid that they can comfortably afford to give money to charity.

Rollerstud98
Apr 3, 2017, 1:12 PM
I just had to read my post again because I didn't remember posting anything like that and nope, I didn't post anything like that. Just putting your own spin on it is all. As to taxing the players salaries that would never work. In doing that you cut off any players desire to come play here.

milomilo
Apr 3, 2017, 1:22 PM
I just had to read my post again because I didn't remember posting anything like that and nope, I didn't post anything like that. Just putting your own spin on it is all. As to taxing the players salaries that would never work. In doing that you cut off any players desire to come play here.

Why mention it then? You said it was lost, I said it's irrelevant.

MichaelS
Apr 3, 2017, 2:20 PM
So toss out the alternative you think would work as well if not better for creating public good using our money.

Not provide anything? Seriously, when did it become the responsibility of the municipal government to provide a venue for professional sports or concerts? Will these concerts be free if we do build it? Not everyone would agree that it is a public good, many would think that simply saving their own money (as opposed to being forced to fund any project through taxation) is a greater public good, as it leaves them control over their own earnings.

As I read this debate more and more, I can't help but think the solution to all of it is a well promoted kickstarter campaign. Those who feel that their tax dollars should go to a new arena can donate to a new arena. Those who don't, won't have to.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 3, 2017, 3:20 PM
Seriously, when did it become the responsibility of the municipal government to provide a venue for professional sports or concerts?
When there is a market failure, governments should intervene to help provide the optimal amount of goods.

When did it become the responsibility of government to provide X? Usually the answer is a market failure.

The city would struggle to even break even on operating costs on our existing arena without a lead tenant guaranteeing 80+ nights a year, and that would be with a property tax exemption!

That means that no arena would ever be built on a commercial basis in a market as small as ours. Might we get a smaller concert optimized space, and a smaller WHL optimized space? Maybe? But it would still likely see part of the market not being served - large arena shows.

Now is that worth a subsidy to fix the market failure? Would instead of a subsidy the city increase welfare more by cutting a $20 cheque to every citizen every year? That is a very different question.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 3, 2017, 3:21 PM
Not provide anything? Seriously, when did it become the responsibility of the municipal government to provide a venue for professional sports or concerts? Will these concerts be free if we do build it? Not everyone would agree that it is a public good, many would think that simply saving their own money (as opposed to being forced to fund any project through taxation) is a greater public good, as it leaves them control over their own earnings.

As I read this debate more and more, I can't help but think the solution to all of it is a well promoted kickstarter campaign. Those who feel that their tax dollars should go to a new arena can donate to a new arena. Those who don't, won't have to.
We should do that for facilities like the NMC and Jube too right? Just supporting fancy people seeing their fancy culture! And those artists! Many are millionaires! And the owners of touring companies — did you hear many are billionaires? :D

H.E.Pennypacker
Apr 3, 2017, 6:52 PM
The new arena will likely go on the parking lots north of the Stampede Grounds (land acquired via a land swap). One issue would be the demolition of the 'dome and who pays for it. It's in both parties' interest to stop the media posturing and actually get a deal done so that there's a new facility done within the next several years when the 'dome is really obsolete.

While I don't advocate public dollars going to fund a private arena, I will say if the City is willing to contribute money that would mostly go towards building a nice new LRT station within the new facility (along the Green Line) that would justify some of the cost. That could help contribute to some of the costs of the superstructure of the new rink otherwise paid for by the Flames.

As there are loose plans to redevelop that corridor along the Stampede Grounds, to include high density mixed use (commercial/residential), a new area can be a good catalyst to kick start development in this area. The potential tax revenues are much greater here than the West Village. That's a potential benefit to the City in terms of contributing money to a new arena. Essentially is piggy backs off the success of the East Village and carries further south of the tracks into East Vic Park with spillover onto Macleod Trail (which is already seeing some good growth).

MichaelS
Apr 3, 2017, 10:14 PM
We should do that for facilities like the NMC and Jube too right? Just supporting fancy people seeing their fancy culture! And those artists! Many are millionaires! And the owners of touring companies — did you hear many are billionaires? :D

I can see agreeing to that (without the unneeded snark). Why not? If society truly values those institutions, they will fund them. If not, should government be forcing people to fund it? It really is just making democracy more efficient, and simplifying political platforms.

If there is fear about people benefiting who didn't contribute, that could probably be resolved by giving those who did contribute a discount on their admission ticket.

suburbia
Apr 3, 2017, 10:17 PM
Hey Calgarians, don't worry - if there's a 2026 Winter Olympics bid in the works, I wouldn't rule out a convey of Brinks trucks full of federal and provincial cash for a new arena and stadium.

Olympics - another entity Bettman and the NHL have been giving the middle finger to.
https://twitter.com/HLundqvist30/status/849003718876049408
Disappointing news, @NHL won't be part of the Olympics 2018. A huge opportunity to market the game at the biggest stage is wasted.

bt04ku
Apr 3, 2017, 10:17 PM
The new arena will likely go on the parking lots north of the Stampede Grounds (land acquired via a land swap). One issue would be the demolition of the 'dome and who pays for it. It's in both parties' interest to stop the media posturing and actually get a deal done so that there's a new facility done within the next several years when the 'dome is really obsolete.

The city (via the Saddledome Foundation) owns the Dome and the land as far as I know so I'd assume 100% of the obligation for demolition would be with them and not the Flames.


But depending on what happens with a 2026 Olympic Bid I think the Dome would be a key part of that (figure skating and short track while the new arena takes hockey) so it would have to stick around until then. And how could you demolish a building that is not only an iconic part of the city's skyline but would also be one of the few venues to host events in two different Olympics? Worst case it starts to crumble and we have some modern ruins to match the Rundle Ruins.

suburbia
Apr 3, 2017, 10:21 PM
I think keeping it in the Stampede vicinity does make sense, partially bridging the current grounds with East Village.

Worst case [Saddledome] starts to crumble and we have some modern ruins to match the Rundle Ruins.

Purposefully deconstructing half of it after the Olympics so it can still function as an amphitheater but look like ruins sounds like a great plan. But I digress.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 3, 2017, 10:25 PM
I can see agreeing to that (without the unneeded snark). Why not? If society truly values those institutions, they will fund them. If not, should government be forcing people to fund it? It really is just making democracy more efficient, and simplifying political platforms.

If there is fear about people benefiting who didn't contribute, that could probably be resolved by giving those who did contribute a discount on their admission ticket.
It is just a lot easier to not try to run an accounting for these things.

Let us say we have your system, and you figure out how to deal with the scalping problem. You then end up with the market failure again, those who have not bought in would face ticket prices high enough that not enough tickets for the year would be sold to cover the maximum potential facility fee earnings. A classic adverse selection issue.

You end up making less money for the operating pot by trying to collect more for the capital pot.

You end up without a stadium because who would build it with that kind of market failure?

And how to you charge people for fringe benefits they receive even without paying for tickets? Extra hotel nights?

Corndogger
Apr 3, 2017, 11:39 PM
Olympics - another entity Bettman and the NHL have been giving the middle finger to.
https://twitter.com/HLundqvist30/status/849003718876049408

No, it was the IOC that gave the middle finger to the NHL. Why should the IOC benefit at the NHL's expense? Do you think if basketball was part of the Winter Olympics that the NBA wouldn't ask for the same things the NHL did? This is going to hurt the IOC way more than the NHL. You'll see after the Olympics in South Korea that the IOC will have a new attitude and will ask the NHL to come back. Bettman should tell them to fuck off unless they get a deal that fairly compensates the league for their loses and potential revenue losses due to injuries.

suburbia
Apr 4, 2017, 12:16 AM
No, it was the IOC that gave the middle finger to the NHL. Why should the IOC benefit at the NHL's expense?

Hmmm ... why should NHL owners benefit from the tax payers' expense? Good point - they should not.

Participating in an Olympics is not about enriching anything other than a sport, so the question you ask just reinforces the central reason public dollars should not help NHL owners make even more money. The NHL is not about sport, it is about making more money.

And yeah - you've convinced me. The Olympics should not benefit the NHL. Even if the city gets federal/provincial funding for a new arena, we should still charge the Flames ownership a much higher proportion of the cost.

ST1
Apr 4, 2017, 1:32 AM
I think the Olympic committee is soon going to find out how important it is to have NHL players in the Olympics. Just about everybody who is a hockey fan just lost interest in the winter Olympics, with hockey being the main draw.

Sure, the NHL is all about money, I won't argue that, but so are the Olympics. These days the Olympics are nothing more than a big money scheme run by a bunch of European cronies.

Hmmm ... why should NHL owners benefit from the tax payers' expense? Good point - they should not.

Participating in an Olympics is not about enriching anything other than a sport, so the question you ask just reinforces the central reason public dollars should not help NHL owners make even more money. The NHL is not about sport, it is about making more money.

And yeah - you've convinced me. The Olympics should not benefit the NHL. Even if the city gets federal/provincial funding for a new arena, we should still charge the Flames ownership a much higher proportion of the cost.

suburbia
Apr 4, 2017, 2:28 AM
As reported here:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/winter/nhl-ioc-olympics-1.4053479

Statement from Hockey Canada
"Today's statement by the NHL is not what we were hoping for because, ultimately, we want best-on-best at the 2018 Olympic Winter Games which, for us at Hockey Canada, includes the participation of NHL players"

Statement from NHL Players Association
"The players are extraordinarily disappointed and adamantly disagree with the NHL's shortsighted decision to not continue our participation in the Olympics.

Any sort of inconvenience the Olympics may cause to next season's schedule is a small price to pay compared to the opportunity to showcase our game and our greatest players on this enormous international stage."

<>

Moreover, it is doing so after the financial issues relating to insurance and transportation have been resolved with the IOC and IIHF. The League's efforts to blame others for its decision is as unfortunate as the decision itself. NHL players are patriotic and they do not take this lightly. A decent respect for the opinions of the players matters. This is the NHL's decision, and its alone. It is very unfortunate for the game, the players and millions of loyal hockey fans."

While some are pointing to the IOC, it is clear that the players themselves want to play in the Olympics. But the billionaire owners don't want to give up in a penny. The sport and the players be damned!

MichaelS
Apr 4, 2017, 4:25 AM
It is just a lot easier to not try to run an accounting for these things.

Let us say we have your system, and you figure out how to deal with the scalping problem. You then end up with the market failure again, those who have not bought in would face ticket prices high enough that not enough tickets for the year would be sold to cover the maximum potential facility fee earnings. A classic adverse selection issue.

You end up making less money for the operating pot by trying to collect more for the capital pot.

You end up without a stadium because who would build it with that kind of market failure?

Now you are getting it. If there is market failure, why would we ever build it? I guess we won't agree, because you seem to be of the opinion that the government MUST provide this stadium (and auditoriums, theatres, insert other form of niche entertainment). I am of the opinion that life would go on in Calgary just fine without a stadium (and even without a Saddledome, if no substantial re-investment were ever made and it had to be shuttered). I personally feel the market will correct. There is only market failure because the terms by one side have not budged. BUT, if the Flames owners decided to take a smaller return on their investment, there probably wouldn't be "market failure" for them to pay for a new arena.

And how to you charge people for fringe benefits they receive even without paying for tickets? Extra hotel nights?

That would be up to the individuals to figure out for themselves. For instance, if I own a hotel, and figured I would see an increase in business if there is a new arena built, it would be worth my time to figure out what that increase would be, and determine what an appropriate amount to invest in the arena is, to help ensure my additional business is captured.

I could take the gamble of not investing anything in the arena, but then it might not come to fruition, and I don't get the increased business. Either way, completely my decision.

Coldrsx
Apr 4, 2017, 4:27 AM
Too much risk, ie. not enough compensation for a market the NHL does not care about...if only they were going to China in a few years.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 4, 2017, 5:29 AM
If there is a market failure, that is the reason for government action. For government intervention. Just like phones, cable, natural gas, electricity, airports.

If you think without government action in the space a stadium will be built then there is no market failure.


I just haven't seen any evidence to support that there is a huge untapped or unseen to outsider profit being made here that can be used to cover another couple hundred million in capital cost.

suburbia
Apr 4, 2017, 5:37 AM
If there is a market failure, that is the reason for government action. For government intervention. Just like phones, cable, natural gas, electricity, airports.

There we go again. Comparing ridiculous items that are clearly just a want (heat, communications, transportation), to something way more important - the need for a Tegan and Sara concert with gigantic lego pieces strung from the ceiling.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 4, 2017, 5:50 AM
Lol.

So want to show your work others on here? How do you get to $600 million/$40 million a year for the capital spend, then around $15 million for operations (probably a low ball). Need 200 sell outs a year or seats sold equivalents to make it an average of $15.30 per ticket. In our small market it induces adverse selection imo.

Socguy
Apr 4, 2017, 7:06 AM
According to a sports economist, it's doubtful the Flames would ever move. Basically, Calgary is a decent sized hockey market and the league needs it to help subsidize all the money losing teams down south with their fancy arenas.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-flames-arena-move-1.4054145

Calgarians pride themselves on being savvy business people. They know Ken King is trying to line his pockets with public money. It's why Nenshi can (and should!) confidently tell the Flames to stuff it.

Corndogger
Apr 4, 2017, 7:20 AM
According to a sports economist, it's doubtful the Flames would ever move. Basically, Calgary is a decent sized hockey market and the league needs it to help subsidize all the money losing teams down south with their fancy arenas.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-flames-arena-move-1.4054145

Calgarians pride themselves on being savvy business people. They know Ken King is trying to line his pockets with public money. It's why Nenshi can (and should!) confidently tell the Flames to stuff it.

Since when did Ken King become an owner?

If Quebec City offered the Flames a good deal they would move this summer. I can see a lot of teams in the east being in favor of such a move to cut down on travel time on western road trips. Nenshi would be stupid to tell the Flames to stuff it. The Flames have options, Calgary doesn't. If the Flames leave the NHL will not come back here not matter what people think. Reminds me of oil--most thought we had the U.S. by the balls forever but look at how that turned out.

Doug
Apr 4, 2017, 12:56 PM
Lol.

So want to show your work others on here? How do you get to $600 million/$40 million a year for the capital spend, then around $15 million for operations (probably a low ball). Need 200 sell outs a year or seats sold equivalents to make it an average of $15.30 per ticket. In our small market it induces adverse selection imo.

How does Rogers Arena survive? Vancouver wasn't much bigger than Calgary when that facility opened. Disposable incomes in that market are far lower than in Calgary.

CrossedTheTracks
Apr 4, 2017, 1:58 PM
The Flames have options, Calgary doesn't.

Only if you believe that "not having an NHL hockey team" isn't an option. Personally, I sure hope it doesn't come to that, but I can think of a few things I'd rather do with 500-1,000 million public dollars than CalgaryNEXT (whatever the actual cost of creosote remediation and other infrastructure changes would be required right NOW if it were to be built.) I hope we can find some middle ground.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 4, 2017, 1:58 PM
Lower relative capital cost (construction inflation outpacing normal inflation, plus the Alberta premium), that was lowered further when passed to a new owner after the economics changed with the loss of NBA iirc. Same with Ottawa and Montreal minus the NBA part iirc.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 4, 2017, 2:03 PM
Only if you believe that "not having an NHL hockey team" isn't an option. Personally, I sure hope it doesn't come to that, but I can think of a few things I'd rather do with 500-1,000 million public dollars than CalgaryNEXT (whatever the actual cost of creosote remediation and other infrastructure changes would be required right NOW if it were to be built.) I hope we can find some middle ground.
Well the flames have ~$400 million on the table, can probably count on a similar or only slightly discounted amount for an arena only structure. Can probably come in south of $600 million of inside the property line costs.

MichaelS
Apr 4, 2017, 2:40 PM
If there is a market failure, that is the reason for government action. For government intervention. Just like phones, cable, natural gas, electricity, airports.

If you think without government action in the space a stadium will be built then there is no market failure.


I just haven't seen any evidence to support that there is a huge untapped or unseen to outsider profit being made here that can be used to cover another couple hundred million in capital cost.

Again, our definition of need vs want is different. I suppose we will see how most other people align during the next election (as I am pretty sure this will be a big issue for this years municipal election). Utilities, critical transportation infrastructure, etc... are needs in my opinion. Entertainment venues are wants.

MalcolmTucker
Apr 4, 2017, 3:38 PM
Again, our definition of need vs want is different. I suppose we will see how most other people align during the next election (as I am pretty sure this will be a big issue for this years municipal election). Utilities, critical transportation infrastructure, etc... are needs in my opinion. Entertainment venues are wants.

Just because something is a want, doesn't mean it isn't important. We spend lots of money supporting high income skiers travelling on roads that wouldn't need to be anywhere nearly as high capacity save for ski rush hour.

Is that a need or a want?

I would argue that without a stadium, the city would end up building one anyways. So why wait to realize what we may lose.

You might think a city like ours could exist without these want facilities: no jube, no arena, no arts commons and its theatres. But would we then be a work camp except with a more white collar vibe and children?

Calgarian
Apr 4, 2017, 4:16 PM
Does anyone know if the grade in the West Village needs to be built up like it did in East Village? I'm sure the question has come up, but I can't recall.