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

Innersoul1
May 11, 2017, 6:32 PM
Difference between this in Ottawa is like comparing apples to oranges. Ottawa is outside of the city itself, and accessibility is difficult since there isn't any transit, limited roads, and is far removed from any urban hot spots areas. Not to mention, it's a hockey arena so gets more usages throughout the year. So for football stadiums, the location of Ottawa's arena actually isn't that bad based since NFL teams have built them out far before. Since it's games would only be occurring once a week/twice a month over a several month period, lack of accessibility isn't as big of a concern.

My proposed location is within the city, in fact less than a kilometer removed from Stampede Park, 1.2km from Inglewood, and 1.5km from downtown in general. There will be an LRT stop on the plot of land built within the next few years (granted greenline starts construction), and has a road network that allows vehicle access from all directions. And ultimately, the area is intended to become a TOD with mixed-used development, along with 11 st, and Inglewood isn't too far away either. (Mission/4 street isn't too far removed either via car)

I don't see how they're similar at all aside from the current state of underdevelopment. But my proposal at least has the intended potential for it.

I think that CSEC will have to - if they aren't already - consider building a new stadium outside of McMahon lands if they aren't interested in renovations. Because I don't believe the university is keen on the land being taken up by a stadium, and if there's a way they can rid of McMahon they'll be all for it. The only options I believe CSEC has is to convince the city to build the fieldhouse to football stadium specs, reno McMahon, or build a new stadium elsewhere in the city.

I posited the point about Ottawa knowing that it was a stretch in terms of direct comparison. However, I think that it's important to establish that the similarity that I foresee is that it will be a number of years before the Blackfoot location will be an actual node/ hub/district worthy of anything. I can't be convinced that this would really only be a temporary solution that would take years for the public to really adopt.

I think that we need to get beyond the fact that the new FOOTBALL stadium would have minimum usage. Granted it won't garner the same usage as the new arena but it opens up a lot of possibility. Large concerts, international soccer in addition to it's football capabilities. However, the success of that is contingent on the new stadium not being in an isolated node. I realize that Inglewood and downtown are a relative short distance away but that won't be the public perception generally speaking as there are too many barrier, even if they happen to be mental ones.

I agree the biggest conundrum is the location. But it is in the best interest of CSEC to select a location that has the services in place to support a stadium in a location that the public would adopt and where they could also do outdoor concerts. It's a lot of boxes to check.

suburbia
May 11, 2017, 7:55 PM
Hard to back down from bullies when Nenshi is the bully in the room.

No actually - you're the bully.

Innersoul1
May 11, 2017, 8:18 PM
So I was thinking about the whole funding thing and I remembered that I have never heard much of European/British football (soccer) teams getting much in the way of public funding, for their much larger stadiums. This makes me call BS even more on the claim it's impossible for these things to be privately financed.

I did a bit of googling to back up my claims and I'm right, came across some articles like this one:

Public Money for Private Stadiums? (https://sites.duke.edu/wcwp/2015/03/28/public-money-for-private-stadiums/)



I stand by my position of if the Flames threaten to leave, why the hell should we care? Let them leave, they clearly have no loyalty to us. This piece also calls BS on the claims of economic revitalization, and I'm inclined to believe that rather than Ken King and his mouth breathing supporters.

I don't necessarily disagree with the overall sentiment of the piece that you have posted. It find that in a lot of respects North American sport is fickle especially when we compare it to football in Europe where everything is based on revenue. The experience in English football is much different. Noticeable differences are that you can't drink in the stands, food isnt sold in the stand either so revenue from those things are much lower. Thus, you really have to promote the fan experience and in the Premier League for example optimizing your stadium is key to that. Ownership understand that the more money you can make via ticket sales and stadium experience means money in the pocket. Remember each major city in England has multiple football stadiums so the idea that you could get government handout to because it increases the fabric of the city etc. is a non-starter. London alone has 14 professional clubs not including the smaller semi-professional clubs that play in smaller stadia. That's 14 significantly sized stadia and once you understand that you can see why those stadia are privately funded.

North American teams seem much more content on government handouts and the big problem is that in many places there is an appetite for governments to take on a portion of these costs. Supporters in North America are don't have the same allegiances to their teams in the broad spectrum that European supporters do.

Joborule
May 12, 2017, 5:06 AM
I agree the biggest conundrum is the location. But it is in the best interest of CSEC to select a location that has the services in place to support a stadium in a location that the public would adopt and where they could also do outdoor concerts. It's a lot of boxes to check.

I feel that aside from the Victoria Park Transit Garage, Blackfoot and Firepark locations, the only other reasonable location would be the one they've suggested - the West Village. But, instead of the football stadium being in the middle of it, it would be on the west end of it, boarding, or absorbing the land of the pumphouse theatre. It checks the boxes of being central, current LRT access, and in an area with strong TOD/ASP development aspirations.

But, the last bit is hindered of course by the contamination, and the amount of years it would take to clean up before any real development could occur. Because of this, there's nothing there, and is far removed from the downtown activity areas because of this. There's no cohesion to draw people into the area, and won't be for a long while.

rotten42
May 12, 2017, 1:40 PM
No actually - you're the bully.


Did I offend the special snowflake?

Innersoul1
May 12, 2017, 4:00 PM
I feel that aside from the Victoria Park Transit Garage, Blackfoot and Firepark locations, the only other reasonable location would be the one they've suggested - the West Village. But, instead of the football stadium being in the middle of it, it would be on the west end of it, boarding, or absorbing the land of the pumphouse theatre. It checks the boxes of being central, current LRT access, and in an area with strong TOD/ASP development aspirations.

But, the last bit is hindered of course by the contamination, and the amount of years it would take to clean up before any real development could occur. Because of this, there's nothing there, and is far removed from the downtown activity areas because of this. There's no cohesion to draw people into the area, and won't be for a long while.

Query this:
What is the extent of the West Village Contamination. Is the Greyhound Site and the Mercedes Dealership large enough for a Football Stadium? Are those parcels contaminated too>

MalcolmTucker
May 12, 2017, 4:08 PM
Well, a stadium would require a lot less decontamination than the residential needed to fund a TIF/CRL to make the average person think that no public money is going into a stadium.

artvandelay
May 12, 2017, 4:55 PM
Query this:
What is the extent of the West Village Contamination. Is the Greyhound Site and the Mercedes Dealership large enough for a Football Stadium? Are those parcels contaminated too>

The worst contamination is between Renfrew Chrysler's building and the river (https://goo.gl/maps/3rNXBxEUuk52), according to the West Village ARP.

It would be smart to locate a stadium here, as minimal excavation would be required in comparison to high rise commercial development.

Calgarian
May 12, 2017, 6:24 PM
When they do remediation, they are going to entirely remove all the contamination regardless of what goes on top of it. Why do a half ass job that will need to be done again in the future?

MalcolmTucker
May 12, 2017, 6:46 PM
When they do remediation, they are going to entirely remove all the contamination regardless of what goes on top of it. Why do a half ass job that will need to be done again in the future?

Diminishing returns to scope. Might cost twice as much to get to 99% instead of 98%.

Calgarian
May 12, 2017, 7:21 PM
They will never get 100% (would have to dig under the river and in part of Hillhurst to do that), but they won't do it differently for an arena vs condo development.

artvandelay
May 12, 2017, 8:09 PM
They will never get 100% (would have to dig under the river and in part of Hillhurst to do that), but they won't do it differently for an arena vs condo development.

Remediation standards for residential use are more onerous than for commercial, so it would certainly be done differently for condo development versus any non-residential use.

Socguy
May 27, 2017, 5:14 PM
Las Vegas (temporarily?) takes the crown for the new 'Worst stadium deal' in history!

http://deadspin.com/the-raiders-robbed-las-vegas-in-americas-worst-stadium-1795475973

The Urbanist
Jun 1, 2017, 4:22 AM
Wow - that's an ugly one.

milomilo
Jun 8, 2017, 3:35 PM
Flames could leave Calgary without new hockey arena, team's Brian Burke warns (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/flames-president-brian-burke-calgary-next-1.4150420)

TLDR: Greasy old rich guy threatens the Flames will 'just leave' if Canadian NHL players don't get tax breaks and Calgary doesn't pay for their arena.

I hope they do leave, it will be a badge of honour for the city to not give in to the complete nonsense that is professional sports.

Luk_o
Jun 8, 2017, 4:11 PM
Flames could leave Calgary without new hockey arena, team's Brian Burke warns (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/flames-president-brian-burke-calgary-next-1.4150420)

TLDR: Greasy old rich guy threatens the Flames will 'just leave' if Canadian NHL players don't get tax breaks and Calgary doesn't pay for their arena.

I hope they do leave, it will be a badge of honour for the city to not give in to the complete nonsense that is professional sports.

That nonsense as you call it has a massive impact on business and culture in this city. It is in the interest of both parties to work together to get a deal done with the appropriate amount of public money being utilized. Not that I think they would, but the Flames leaving town would be huge loss whether you're a sports fan or not.

milomilo
Jun 8, 2017, 4:31 PM
That nonsense as you call it has a massive impact on business and culture in this city. It is in the interest of both parties to work together to get a deal done with the appropriate amount of public money being utilized. Not that I think they would, but the Flames leaving town would be huge loss whether you're a sports fan or not.

Would it be? We only ever here that from one side of the argument, the sports teams. Everyone on the other side seems to say that sports teams have negligible impact on the economic fortunes of cities.

esquire
Jun 8, 2017, 4:39 PM
That nonsense as you call it has a massive impact on business and culture in this city. It is in the interest of both parties to work together to get a deal done with the appropriate amount of public money being utilized. Not that I think they would, but the Flames leaving town would be huge loss whether you're a sports fan or not.

If the Flames left, it would be just a matter of months before they were replaced with a relocated or expansion team. Playing in Calgary, even if it is in the Saddledome, is still probably a better deal than what some existing NHL markets can provide an owner.

That's why the threat is so hollow... everyone knows that if the Flames act on the threat, another team would jump into the market right away. There would be no Winnipeg-style 15 year gap in NHL hockey.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 8, 2017, 4:47 PM
Every year there is a gap the city would be out of pocket at least $10 million, plus any larger life cycle or capital improvements to the building that come up.

Even at 5 years, the city is out $50 million bucks, a good portion or what would be a city contribution to a new arena, with nothing to show for it.

Luk_o
Jun 8, 2017, 5:05 PM
Would it be? We only ever here that from one side of the argument, the sports teams. Everyone on the other side seems to say that sports teams have negligible impact on the economic fortunes of cities.

If that's true then why did Winnipeg and QC go through the trouble of building new arenas and fight so hard to bring hockey back to their cities after they lost their teams? I can guarantee you the majority of people in those cities prefer having their teams in town than not. Its not just economic fortune, which I would argue is far from negligible - It significantly adds to the culture of a city, especially in Canada. In my time living in Calgary, I have never seen a bigger public celebration with 10's of thousands of people flooding the streets than when the Flames are in the playoffs - You don't get that without a professional sports franchise - It's undeniable whether a fan or not. Imagine any major N.American city without their 'nonsense' professional sports teams. Flames also pour millions of dollars back into the community every year.

Also, aside from the Flames, a new arena also gives us a proper modern venue to host any concert.

esquire
Jun 8, 2017, 5:08 PM
Every year there is a gap the city would be out of pocket at least $10 million, plus any larger life cycle or capital improvements to the building that come up.

What is the $10 million figure based on?

MalcolmTucker
Jun 8, 2017, 5:10 PM
What is the $10 million figure based on?

In the 90s the city did a report and said that if the Flames left the city would have obligations of $6 million a year iirc to keep the Dome available for rentals.

esquire
Jun 8, 2017, 5:26 PM
^ So the Flames carry those costs right now?

patm
Jun 8, 2017, 5:36 PM
If the Flames left, it would be just a matter of months before they were replaced with a relocated or expansion team. Playing in Calgary, even if it is in the Saddledome, is still probably a better deal than what some existing NHL markets can provide an owner.

That's why the threat is so hollow... everyone knows that if the Flames act on the threat, another team would jump into the market right away. There would be no Winnipeg-style 15 year gap in NHL hockey.

Disagree. No chance a team comes here without a new arena. Zero.

No one will ever build an arena with private funds in Calgary, especially with how grim things are looking economically long term.

No buyer will buy the team for them to continue to play in the Saddledome.

The team will move to a market where they can get a brand new building for free and no team will come back here until an arena is built.

The city will continue having to maintain the Saddledome until they no longer can at which point they will build their own arena anyways.

As long there are viable markets willing to provide the Flames home with public money, they have the leverage.

Personally I think they will get some public money and the Flames don't actually have the appetite to move as they're still quite profitable. Should that profitability start to decline with the Calgary market, this will change.

esquire
Jun 8, 2017, 6:24 PM
Disagree. No chance a team comes here without a new arena. Zero.

No one will ever build an arena with private funds in Calgary, especially with how grim things are looking economically long term.

No buyer will buy the team for them to continue to play in the Saddledome.

The team will move to a market where they can get a brand new building for free and no team will come back here until an arena is built.

The city will continue having to maintain the Saddledome until they no longer can at which point they will build their own arena anyways.

As long there are viable markets willing to provide the Flames home with public money, they have the leverage.

Personally I think they will get some public money and the Flames don't actually have the appetite to move as they're still quite profitable. Should that profitability start to decline with the Calgary market, this will change.

If Winnipeg, a much smaller market, went through a scenario where government refused to provide the team with a free arena and the team left, after which the private sector then built its own (with government assistance, but still less than 1/3 of the total cost) and brought a team back, what on earth makes you think that Calgary -- a much more attractive market if you're an owner -- wouldn't be able to do the same?

The reality is that even if some random market where hockey is an afterthought can offer up an amazing arena for free, none of those places are going to dump as much money into a NHL team as Calgary will.

There is some serious Stockholm Syndrome going on here.

240glt
Jun 8, 2017, 6:33 PM
Seems to be the way things are going. Billionaire owners looking for the general public to cover costs of building these new arenas as "public infrastructure" and then monopolizing all the use and revenue for their own gains.

Edmonton's deal is so bad, the only reason it went through was with promises of "downtown revitalization" (a very popular motive.. they've been trying to do this since the 70's) Calgary's downtown doesn't require that kind of welfare, I hope the city stands up to these bullies. Flames ain't going anywhere. Don't let them sucker you like they suckered Edmontonians

geotag277
Jun 8, 2017, 6:40 PM
^ So the Flames carry those costs right now?

For the record, Calgary covers Saddledome's annual maintenance costs, in a deal that was strong armed by current Flames owners (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/city-agrees-to-cover-saddledome-s-annual-maintenance-costs-1.283621), to the tune of 1.3 million a year.

The CalgaryNEXT West Village report (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=43230) is probably the most up to date source of numbers regarding forgone revenue, costs, and so on. Among the figures (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=427927) in this report, include 1.7 million a year on forgone property tax.

So probably approximately 3 million a year the city is effectively paying already.

I couldn't really find any numbers concerning the revenue for tickets, but this source (http://edmontonjournal.com/storyline/rexall-place-was-the-third-busiest-arena-for-concerts-in-canada-last-year-according-to-pollstar) has Saddledome at about 150k a year in concert ticket sales. If the average price is $50 a ticket for those, you are looking at about 7.5 million in total revenue, 20% of which as a facility charge means 1.5 million revenue for Saddledome operators. In contrast, Rexall Place sold twice the number of ticket, so is looking at 3 million in revenue, potentially a new Calgary arena could do similar (this is not even considering concessions sales which would likely double the revenue alone).

It seems to me, the city could do fine by going it alone to build an arena for concerts, and own and operate it themselves. If a sports franchise wants to use the arena for hockey, it seems to make financial sense for the city to simply charge them rental fees on top of it.

It seems to me, there is rather a simple path forward for a fair deal regarding the arena that benefits the city, the problem is that the deal being proposed simply isn't good enough. That all the backhanded talk about "we aren't appreciated" and "we will just leave" and "we don't feel welcome" seems all the more disingenuous considering the Flames enjoy very high attendance rates and high merchandise sales.

If such a strong base of local support isn't enough to "make you feel welcome", don't let the door hit your behind on the way out. I can see Calgary being particularly proud of being the city which stood up to these backhanded shenanigans because it simply wasn't a good deal for us.

MichaelS
Jun 8, 2017, 6:45 PM
For the record, Calgary covers Saddledome's annual maintenance costs, in a deal that was strong armed by current Flames owners (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/city-agrees-to-cover-saddledome-s-annual-maintenance-costs-1.283621), to the tune of 1.3 million a year.

The CalgaryNEXT West Village report (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=43230) is probably the most up to date source of numbers regarding forgone revenue, costs, and so on. Among the figures (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=427927) in this report, include 1.7 million a year on forgone property tax.

So probably approximately 3 million a year the city is effectively paying already.

I couldn't really find any numbers concerning the revenue for tickets, but this source (http://edmontonjournal.com/storyline/rexall-place-was-the-third-busiest-arena-for-concerts-in-canada-last-year-according-to-pollstar) has Saddledome at about 150k a year in concert ticket sales. If the average price is $50 a ticket for those, you are looking at about 7.5 million in total revenue, 20% of which as a facility charge means 1.5 million revenue for Saddledome operators. In contrast, Rexall Place sold twice the number of ticket, so is looking at 3 million in revenue, potentially a new Calgary arena could do similar (this is not even considering concessions sales which would likely double the revenue alone).

It seems to me, the city could do fine by going it alone to build an arena for concerts, and own and operate it themselves. If a sports franchise wants to use the arena for hockey, it seems to make financial sense for the city to simply charge them rental fees on top of it.

It seems to me, there is rather a simple path forward for a fair deal regarding the arena that benefits the city, the problem is that the deal being proposed simply isn't good enough. That all the backhanded talk about "we aren't appreciated" and "we will just leave" and "we don't feel welcome" seems all the more disingenuous considering the Flames enjoy very high attendance rates and high merchandise sales.

If such a strong base of local support isn't enough to "make you feel welcome", don't let the door hit your behind on the way out. I can see Calgary being particularly proud of being the city which stood up to these backhanded shenanigans because it simply wasn't a good deal for us.

Based on how the property tax system actually works, is it fare to say it is foregone property tax revenue? Or, is it more accurate to say that 1.7 million in property taxes is currently being charged across all other assessed properties in the City, and adding this arena to this property will maintain the existing property tax revenues received by The City of Calgary, and slightly reduce the property tax burden on all of the other assessed properties within the City limits?

patm
Jun 8, 2017, 7:00 PM
If Winnipeg, a much smaller market, went through a scenario where government refused to provide the team with a free arena and the team left, after which the private sector then built its own (with government assistance, but still less than 1/3 of the total cost) and brought a team back, what on earth makes you think that Calgary -- a much more attractive market if you're an owner -- wouldn't be able to do the same?

The reality is that even if some random market where hockey is an afterthought can offer up an amazing arena for free, none of those places are going to dump as much money into a NHL team as Calgary will.

There is some serious Stockholm Syndrome going on here.

Winnipeg built an arena that was too small for the NHL, still got public money and brought the team back on the back of a crazy owner who was okay with the fact that the team needs to sell out every game to make profit. Do you think that is a normal situation?

Seattle and Quebec could match Calgary no issue. Seattle has the market size and Quebec has the Canadian fandom. Lets not pat ourselves on the back too much. This team was on it's last legs prior to '04 and the economic climate in Calgary is falling to levels that are even less favorable than the 90's. TV viewership and attendance has been trending down (although still really high) so while Calgary is definitely a strong hockey market, it's not some golden goose that no market could compare to.

Frankly, this ownership group has so much invested in the Alberta economy I'm not surprised they're not lining up to sink another half a billion into a real estate project here.

In the end this is all moot. The city will give some money and the owners are hardly jonesing to move. No rush to figure it out yet.

suburbia
Jun 8, 2017, 7:01 PM
Disagree. No chance a team comes here without a new arena. Zero.

Zero chance the earth is round. Zero.

They also cannot leave because of the Rogers' agreement, which requires the three Western Canadian markets.

Thought it was interesting that Burke also suggested that hockey players should get a tax break.

geotag277
Jun 8, 2017, 7:33 PM
Frankly, this ownership group has so much invested in the Alberta economy I'm not surprised they're not lining up to sink another half a billion into a real estate project here.

I have to agree, and combined with the struggling overall economic climate, and the city itself struggling a bit with finances, it seems like an absurdly bad time to be pressing the issue and making (un)veiled threats to live under the guise of "not being appreciated".

The Flames ownership group has contributed greatly to the Calgary economic landscape, but it is phenomenally tone deaf and oddly disconnected from the economic reality to be banging the drums about a new arena at this point in time.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 8, 2017, 7:52 PM
For the record, Calgary covers Saddledome's annual maintenance costs, in a deal that was strong armed by current Flames owners (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/city-agrees-to-cover-saddledome-s-annual-maintenance-costs-1.283621), to the tune of 1.3 million a year.

The CalgaryNEXT West Village report (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=43230) is probably the most up to date source of numbers regarding forgone revenue, costs, and so on. Among the figures (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=427927) in this report, include 1.7 million a year on forgone property tax.

So probably approximately 3 million a year the city is effectively paying already.

I couldn't really find any numbers concerning the revenue for tickets, but this source (http://edmontonjournal.com/storyline/rexall-place-was-the-third-busiest-arena-for-concerts-in-canada-last-year-according-to-pollstar) has Saddledome at about 150k a year in concert ticket sales. If the average price is $50 a ticket for those, you are looking at about 7.5 million in total revenue, 20% of which as a facility charge means 1.5 million revenue for Saddledome operators. In contrast, Rexall Place sold twice the number of ticket, so is looking at 3 million in revenue, potentially a new Calgary arena could do similar (this is not even considering concessions sales which would likely double the revenue alone).

It seems to me, the city could do fine by going it alone to build an arena for concerts, and own and operate it themselves. If a sports franchise wants to use the arena for hockey, it seems to make financial sense for the city to simply charge them rental fees on top of it.

It seems to me, there is rather a simple path forward for a fair deal regarding the arena that benefits the city, the problem is that the deal being proposed simply isn't good enough. That all the backhanded talk about "we aren't appreciated" and "we will just leave" and "we don't feel welcome" seems all the more disingenuous considering the Flames enjoy very high attendance rates and high merchandise sales.

If such a strong base of local support isn't enough to "make you feel welcome", don't let the door hit your behind on the way out. I can see Calgary being particularly proud of being the city which stood up to these backhanded shenanigans because it simply wasn't a good deal for us.

Well, in the Herald it was:

The Saddledome Foundation will use the $1.3 million to cover capital maintenance while another $1.3 million will be generated from ticket surcharges at Saddledome events.

The team and the foundation are seeking the remaining $1.3 million from the province, over and above the money generated from the lottery, but it remains the responsibility of the Flames, said team spokesman Peter Hanlon.


So, $4.9 million.

From another Herald piece:

The money will help offset a $3.9-million deficit the team incurs on the building each year


This was in exchange for:

20 per cent of any profits from Saddledome operations given to the city


This was a change to the deal, that replaced the original 20 year lease, that the Flames gave the Stampede Board $20 million to buy out.

suburbia
Jun 8, 2017, 8:43 PM
I couldn't really find any numbers concerning the revenue for tickets, but this source (http://edmontonjournal.com/storyline/rexall-place-was-the-third-busiest-arena-for-concerts-in-canada-last-year-according-to-pollstar) has Saddledome at about 150k a year in concert ticket sales. If the average price is $50 a ticket for those, you are looking at about 7.5 million in total revenue, 20% of which as a facility charge means 1.5 million revenue for Saddledome operators.

The "horse" has told me that the concert / entertainment portfolio of the organization did $60M in 2015. The pieces include 1.) tickets, 2.) sponsorships, 3.) concessions, and #4.) other things. You've underestimated #1, #2 & #3 are massive, and #4 is unknown. The scenario is like in new car sales. The sad story is always that the percentage profit on a new car is so small, but the money actually is in financing and maintenance. When making the sale the dealer is not going to offer up #2 and #3. It is not that the Flames say lies, but reality is, they are not providing the whole story. The profit proposition for them is already massive, and will get bigger. The proposition for the City is horrible. And for them to say the players need a tax break on salaries is unfathomable.

milomilo
Jun 8, 2017, 9:07 PM
If that's true then why did Winnipeg and QC go through the trouble of building new arenas and fight so hard to bring hockey back to their cities after they lost their teams? I can guarantee you the majority of people in those cities prefer having their teams in town than not. Its not just economic fortune, which I would argue is far from negligible - It significantly adds to the culture of a city, especially in Canada. In my time living in Calgary, I have never seen a bigger public celebration with 10's of thousands of people flooding the streets than when the Flames are in the playoffs - You don't get that without a professional sports franchise - It's undeniable whether a fan or not. Imagine any major N.American city without their 'nonsense' professional sports teams. Flames also pour millions of dollars back into the community every year.

Also, aside from the Flames, a new arena also gives us a proper modern venue to host any concert.

So every few years we might get a couple of weeks where 17th Ave gets busy on a few nights of the week until the team eventually loses. Woopdy do. You make it sound like a big deal but it really isn't. When you look at other cities, do you really think people look at them and go 'ah yes that's a great city because of their sports corporations'?.

I've yet to find any evidence that spending the type of money the Flames wants us to spend is justified by economics, given the evidence we have seen in other cities. If you can find anything to indicate otherwise, please post it. I'm completely fine with spending some public money on an arena given the other functions they have, but it has to be a good deal for the city.


BTW, I encourage everyone to watch the interview with this patronising prick:

ZV0uWBptg0k

You can really tell how little these teams have to work for their money and the uncompetitive nature of this market. If an executive of any other major company came out with an interview like this one the press would be all over them and they'd get fired. Not so with sports teams, where it's OK to belittle the city you are trying to do business in.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 8, 2017, 9:12 PM
is justified by economics
It isn't, at least if you define economics as profit making activity, or generating outsized spin offs.

It is in the sense that if arenas exist and then there are way more opportunities to host activities that require arenas, and those activities have value to people that is not recoverable as dollars, so a market failure exists, justifying government intervention.

milomilo
Jun 8, 2017, 9:17 PM
It isn't, at least if you define economics as profit making activity, or generating outsized spin offs.

It is in the sense that if arenas exist and then there are way more opportunities to host activities that require arenas, and those activities have value to people that is not recoverable as dollars, so a market failure exists, justifying government intervention.

That's fine, as I said I'm fine with some public money being used, but it has to be a good deal for the city.

If the Flames did leave, is it completely impossible to have an arena for concerts etc? I remember back in the UK every moderately sized (500,000+) city had somewhere suitable, but then again the surrounding population density was higher.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 8, 2017, 9:22 PM
That's fine, as I said I'm fine with some public money being used, but it has to be a good deal for the city.

If the Flames did leave, is it completely impossible to have an arena for concerts etc? I remember back in the UK every moderately sized (500,000+) city had somewhere suitable, but then again the surrounding population density was higher.

Probably not for less than a potential contribution to a new Flames arena. :cheers:

You just need to get around to the fact that an arena is something that is good for the city to have, and that if we didn't have one, we would probably build one, even if less fancy and more tuned to the specialty needs of hosting concerts.

In Calgary's case, one needs to get to the point that at some point we will either have to replace our arena with a not up to standard roof, or renew it and still have an arena with a not up to standard roof.

This might be 10 years earlier than the city would make this investment on its own, but it isn't a bad deal, if the city can hold its contribution down to below $100m or so direct.

esquire
Jun 8, 2017, 9:31 PM
Probably not for less than a potential contribution to a new Flames arena. :cheers:

Who says there needs to be a new arena just for concerts? People are commenting here like having Selena Gomez or Garth Brooks play a show in a venue capable of handling every conceivable form of stage rigging is some kind of essential municipal service.

If Flames' ownership doesn't want to take the lead on a new arena, the sensible thing to do would be to just keep using the Saddledome until someone willing to build a new rink inevitably comes along.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 8, 2017, 9:35 PM
Who says there needs to be a new arena just for concerts? People are commenting here like having Selena Gomez or Garth Brooks play a show in a venue capable of handling every conceivable form of stage rigging is some kind of essential municipal service.

If Flames' ownership doesn't want to take the lead on a new arena, the sensible thing to do would be to just keep using the Saddledome until someone willing to build a new rink inevitably comes along.

Governments fund all sorts of non essential things. And 'inevitably comes along' could be never. Certainly few places with similar populations have privately funded arenas.

patm
Jun 8, 2017, 9:45 PM
Who on earth would build a privately funded arena without a tenant in a city of 1.4 million where the only major industry is on life support.

Unless you think the Saddledome will last decades without major investment, this city will be building a publicly funded arena whether the Flames are involved or not. Calling the Flames bluff and letting them move just delays it 10-20 years (and means the city incurs the increasing costs of running an ancient building over that time).

Socguy
Jun 8, 2017, 9:56 PM
Seattle doesn't have an arena capable of hosting an NHL team, and won't have till 2021 at the earliest. So no danger there. Quebec city has the problem of being in the eastern conference and the NHL is loathe to move a team from the west to the east and the unbalancing problems that would come with it. They didn't even want an expansion team there. Besides, if the NHL did want a team to move there, why would would it be the Flames? How many teams does this league have that are perennial money losers?

A new arena will not reduce legacy costs of the saddledome since it would still not generate property tax and it would then have to compete with the new building, unless it's torn down. Instead, a new arena will occupy land that could be better utilized with almost anything else.

Calgary is in the drivers seat here. They have a functional NHL arena already built in the right place. Really, the only excuse to build a new one is the roof. Still, it's pretty thin as it only costs the city a tiny handful of acts in a given year. Even Ken King admits that this alone doesn't justify a new building. If the Flames are serious about a new building, they will have to substantially sweeten the pot.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 8, 2017, 10:11 PM
And Seattle's arena deal has some weird tax provisions:
OVG seeks to negotiate a deal with the city to repurpose some of the tax revenue collected each year on admissions, retail sales, parking, and the leasehold excise taxes they would pay in lieu of property taxes for use of a private building on public lands. The plan calls for these revenues to provide credit towards the base rent they would pay the city each year.
http://www.sonicsrising.com/2017/5/3/15528668/ovg-keyarena-seattle-proposal-more-public-funding

esquire
Jun 8, 2017, 10:48 PM
Governments fund all sorts of non essential things. And 'inevitably comes along' could be never. Certainly few places with similar populations have privately funded arenas.

But you're trying to make it sound inevitable that the City of Calgary is going to build a new arena either way. I don't see why that is the case at all. The Saddledome can handle just about all the events Calgary needs it to... you don't build a new arena because Justin Bieber or a couple of other acts require more rigging than the Saddledome's roof can support.

If the Flames left, the Saddledome would be good for at least another 20 years.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 8, 2017, 10:53 PM
I do believe the city will build a new arena or substantially renovate the current arena . 10 or 20 years from now after a good portion of city subsidy to keeping the thing open, there is a capital expense, or a capital expense up front, with 2 extra revenue streams (Flames and concerts we can't host right now).

esquire
Jun 9, 2017, 12:33 AM
I do believe the city will build a new arena or substantially renovate the current arena . 10 or 20 years from now after a good portion of city subsidy to keeping the thing open, there is a capital expense, or a capital expense up front, with 2 extra revenue streams (Flames and concerts we can't host right now).

How many concerts are there that can't be hosted at the Saddledome? When I look at the event calendar there is a pretty long of events scheduled there... it can't be more than a handful of acts that won't play there by the looks of things.

But even setting that aside, an operating subsidy for basic maintenance is still a far easier pill for the City of Calgary to swallow than ponying up the capital costs for what would essentially be someone else's new rink.

jeffwhit
Jun 9, 2017, 1:53 PM
How many concerts are there that can't be hosted at the Saddledome? When I look at the event calendar there is a pretty long of events scheduled there... it can't be more than a handful of acts that won't play there by the looks of things.

But even setting that aside, an operating subsidy for basic maintenance is still a far easier pill for the City of Calgary to swallow than ponying up the capital costs for what would essentially be someone else's new rink.

Don't be fooled, this thing happened with Garth Brooks once, and that is the most important factor to consider.

patm
Jun 9, 2017, 4:27 PM
Edmonton has already established itself as the go-to Concert venue for Alberta. The damage from the roof AND the stupid NIMBY's has already been done.

City Hall's response to Burke's comments sounded positive. Saying that they have a deal framed up and it should be public in a few weeks. Made it sound like negotiations are going smoothly and I laughed at the "Don't know why no one told Burke" line.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 9, 2017, 4:30 PM
How many concerts are there that can't be hosted at the Saddledome? When I look at the event calendar there is a pretty long of events scheduled there... it can't be more than a handful of acts that won't play there by the looks of things.

But even setting that aside, an operating subsidy for basic maintenance is still a far easier pill for the City of Calgary to swallow than ponying up the capital costs for what would essentially be someone else's new rink.

Don't be fooled, this thing happened with Garth Brooks once, and that is the most important factor to consider.

Calgary's arena is under performing concert wise. Worst of the major venues in Canada by far, from Pollstar:
http://i.imgur.com/pCeGizp.png

esquire
Jun 9, 2017, 4:40 PM
^ Is adding 175,000 more concertgoers a year to bring Calgary up to the same level as Edmonton (what is that, maybe about an extra concert per month? Maybe two some months?) really a good reason for your municipal government to dump close to half a billion dollars into a new building? I mean, I like music as much as the next guy, but that is literally what you are talking about here.

Also, if concerts are such a big deal then at what point do concert promoters bear some of the responsibility here? Municipalities don't go in and kick Cineplex some scratch if their theatres miss out on hot releases for lack of the latest and greatest sound systems or 3-D projection systems or whatever.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 9, 2017, 4:48 PM
Well, it sure makes it a lot easier to fund a larger portion of the arena from user fees versus the Saddledome's current user base.

And I don't see a problem with the state funding theatres for huge companies touring multi million dollar broadway shows. Do you?

And no, I don't think the government is going to dump anywhere close to that into the arena. I doubt the city will even be at a 50% share.

patm
Jun 9, 2017, 4:49 PM
^ Is adding 175,000 more concertgoers a year to bring Calgary up to the same level as Edmonton (what is that, maybe about an extra concert per month? Maybe two some months?) really a good reason for your municipal government to dump close to half a billion dollars into a new building? I mean, I like music as much as the next guy, but that is literally what you are talking about here.

Also, if concerts are such a big deal then at what point do concert promoters bear some of the responsibility here? Municipalities don't go in and kick Cineplex some scratch if their theatres miss out on hot releases for lack of the latest and greatest sound systems or 3-D projection systems or whatever.

Like I said the damage has already been done. The promoters are all focused around Edmonton. Less BS to deal with and Calgarians will drive up for any show they really want to see.

It'll take the new arena and some time for that to shift if Calgary still remains the bigger city for the foreseeable future. Or a new major promoter.

H.E.Pennypacker
Jun 10, 2017, 1:58 PM
Brian Burke is a blowhard .. Enough said. Needless posturing to the press IMO.

An arena deal will get done regardless

Socguy
Jun 14, 2017, 1:44 AM
All these people who seem to want a new arena should start ponying up now. Slap a $20 ticket tax on every ticket sold at the 'dome to start accumulating a new arena fund. That way the users pay by lay-a-way.

Added bonus: If a new arena does get built they can just roll that $20 tax into the inevitable 50% ticket price hike and it won't seem quite so big.

Fuzz
Jun 14, 2017, 1:26 PM
What is the next step here? Brett Wilson said the city is dragging its heels. What does the city need to do right now? Or are we waiting for a new proposal from CSEC?

Cage
Jun 14, 2017, 3:53 PM
Like I said the damage has already been done. The promoters are all focused around Edmonton. Less BS to deal with and Calgarians will drive up for any show they really want to see.

It'll take the new arena and some time for that to shift if Calgary still remains the bigger city for the foreseeable future. Or a new major promoter.

Promoters are continental based and will shift to a new venue if it will bring them more money. There is no civic loyalty in the business.

All these people who seem to want a new arena should start ponying up now. Slap a $20 ticket tax on every ticket sold at the 'dome to start accumulating a new arena fund. That way the users pay by lay-a-way..

The problem with the ticket tax is that the city is calculating the tax portion as civic public money contribution rather than user pay contribution.

The major problem, IMHO, is the player collective bargain agreement that puts all ticket receipts to the club into the cap room and pay calculations. If there was a mechanism to segregate a portion of the ticket revenue to the building fund and not go into player salary calcs, then CSEC could manage the ticket tax themselves.

What is the next step here? Brett Wilson said the city is dragging its heels. What does the city need to do right now? Or are we waiting for a new proposal from CSEC?

The city (council and administration) needs to come up with their own list of specific conditions that will either get an arena built or provide certainty that a new arena is not in the cards. Particularly relevant is how much debt room the city is willing to commit? This is relevant as the city wants to do a lot of capital dollar projects over the next 10-15 years and these projects won't be paid off for 15-30 years.

The big question the city needs to answer, does the city (council and administration) want a new arena? Yes or no answer. If the answer is no, then any further negotiation is just wasting everyone's time.

Specific to the comment of "public money for public benefit", does this include the city fronting money that will be recovered through a ticket tax. I can see both sides to the arguement but it needs to be explained in a clear unambiguous manner that defines what is public money.

MalcolmTucker
Jun 14, 2017, 3:59 PM
Calgary Flames: 767,829
Calgary Hitmen: 273,564
Calgary Roughnecks: 104,598
Concerts: 120,000-250,000

Total:
1,265,991 (at the low side)

Amount needed to carry a $200 million loan per year, 30 year time frame: $10,201,813.38

$8 a ticket.

Probably can go to $10 without totally causing a downward spiral of events not being held.

Fuzz
Jun 14, 2017, 4:02 PM
Thanks Cage. Are those issues scheduled to be delt with, or is Bret correct that the city is dragging? I kind of thought the next step would be for CSEC to come up with a Victoria Park proposal similar to Calgary NEXT. Then Council would be in a position to say 'yes this is an idea we can fund or work with' or go pound sand.

artvandelay
Jun 14, 2017, 4:08 PM
I heard a very interesting confidential tidbit that leads me to believe there is significant traction with the Victoria Park location.

It also suggests that the decision to utilize the Victoria Park site will be significantly more expensive to taxpayers than the WV alternative when all is said and done.

Fuzz
Jun 14, 2017, 4:10 PM
I heard a very interesting confidential tidbit that leads me to believe there is significant traction with the Victoria Park location.

It also suggests that the decision to utilize the Victoria Park site will be significantly more expensive to taxpayers than the WV alternative when all is said and done.

Why is that? Flood protection? West Village was going to be hugely expensive for reclamation and road alignment, I can't see how a site could be worse than that.

esquire
Jun 14, 2017, 4:13 PM
Calgary Flames: 767,829
Calgary Hitmen: 273,564
Calgary Roughnecks: 104,598
Concerts: 120,000-250,000

Total:
1,265,991 (at the low side)

Amount needed to carry a $200 million loan per year, 30 year time frame: $10,201,813.38

$8 a ticket.

Probably can go to $10 without totally causing a downward spiral of events not being held.

The Saskatchewan Roughriders imposed a $12 a ticket facility surcharge to help pay off the team's share of New Mosaic Stadium. I think Calgary can easily handle that much.

artvandelay
Jun 14, 2017, 4:15 PM
Why is that? Flood protection? West Village was going to be hugely expensive for reclamation and road alignment, I can't see how a site could be worse than that.

Unfortunately I can't go into detail.

Fuzz
Jun 14, 2017, 4:33 PM
We promise to keep it super secret on this publicly accessible forum :)

I can only assume it must be a large facility to cost taxpayers more. I wonder if there will be an appetite for that, or if it will be rejected by the public like NEXT was. I know I have very little interested in blowing a lot of money on this thing.

GreenSPACE
Jun 14, 2017, 5:13 PM
The Saskatchewan Roughriders imposed a $12 a ticket facility surcharge to help pay off the team's share of New Mosaic Stadium. I think Calgary can easily handle that much.

Rogers Place ticket surcharge amounted to $125m. Not sure how much that is per ticket. I think it's around $5.

artvandelay
Jun 14, 2017, 5:14 PM
We promise to keep it super secret on this publicly accessible forum :)

I can only assume it must be a large facility to cost taxpayers more. I wonder if there will be an appetite for that, or if it will be rejected by the public like NEXT was. I know I have very little interested in blowing a lot of money on this thing.

The costs associated with WV cleanup and infrastructure are sunk, in that they will need to be borne eventually. I'd put what's being discussed in Vic Park in the category of "nice to have" rather than essential to the city. It will result in a better project if everything comes to fruition, but likely greater expense to taxpayers.

Apologies for being so cryptic, but I really can't reveal much other than that things are in motion behind the scenes.

Fuzz
Jun 14, 2017, 5:17 PM
No worries, I understand the need to keep it under wraps. Thanks for the tidbits, appreciate it!

patm
Jun 14, 2017, 5:19 PM
I'm assuming some sort of underground connection to the core?

What could it possibly be on that foot print, above ground, that would make it more expensive?

Unless we're talking that strip of bars they want to build. Really not sold on that unless it's enclosed (like what you see in some of the mega malls these days)

Big Sky
Jun 14, 2017, 5:20 PM
Agreed. It could even be percentage based whereas Flames tickets and concert tickets which are higher to start with, pay a bit more. Hitmen and Roughnecks would be a bit lower.
Calgary Flames: 767,829
Calgary Hitmen: 273,564
Calgary Roughnecks: 104,598
Concerts: 120,000-250,000

Total:
1,265,991 (at the low side)

Amount needed to carry a $200 million loan per year, 30 year time frame: $10,201,813.38

$8 a ticket.

Probably can go to $10 without totally causing a downward spiral of events not being held.

craner
Jun 14, 2017, 7:09 PM
^Agreed, percentage based is the way to go.

$10 on a Flames ticket is less than 10% but would be a third of a Hitmen or Roughneck ticket - not really fair.

craner
Jun 14, 2017, 7:12 PM
The problem with the ticket tax is that the city is calculating the tax portion as civic public money contribution rather than user pay contribution.

The major problem, IMHO, is the player collective bargain agreement that puts all ticket receipts to the club into the cap room and pay calculations. If there was a mechanism to segregate a portion of the ticket revenue to the building fund and not go into player salary calcs, then CSEC could manage the ticket tax themselves.

How have they dealt with this in Edmonton and/or other cities that have a ticket tax ?

Fuzz
Jun 14, 2017, 7:15 PM
How have they dealt with this in Edmonton and/or other cities that have a ticket tax ?

In Edmonton the ticket checker has a shopvac, so when you open your wallet to take out your ticket they just suck up whatever they can get. Concessions, too.

Cage
Jun 14, 2017, 7:15 PM
Thanks Cage. Are those issues scheduled to be delt with, or is Bret correct that the city is dragging? I kind of thought the next step would be for CSEC to come up with a Victoria Park proposal similar to Calgary NEXT. Then Council would be in a position to say 'yes this is an idea we can fund or work with' or go pound sand.

Your welcome.

From what I have read and seen, none of the above issues are being worked on or mentioned in the public domain.

The city first identified that Vic Park was their preferred location. Therefore the city has to bring the Vic Park plan up to concept design stage. In this regard, CSEC lists put their requirements for an arena only proposal and the city fills in the blanks for city costs (e.g. Infrastructure upgrades) and funding proposals.

My guesstimate looking at what Art Vandalay posted above, the city will come out with a Vic Park proposal that will serve as a ballot box question for October.

Cage
Jun 14, 2017, 7:19 PM
How have they dealt with this in Edmonton and/or other cities that have a ticket tax ?

The city fronts money to the arena for construction and then collects 100% of the ticket tax receipts to pay off the loan over a 15-30 year period. That is how it's done in a Edmonton.

In other cities, the hotel/tourist tax pays for the sports arena. The tax is smaller because it is spread out over more funding sources.

craner
Jun 14, 2017, 7:23 PM
Thanks Cage.
(& Art V. For the insider info). :sly:

Cage
Jun 14, 2017, 7:23 PM
What could it possibly be on that foot print, above ground, that would make it more expensive?

Unless we're talking that strip of bars they want to build. Really not sold on that unless it's enclosed (like what you see in some of the mega malls these days)

Don't think in terms of the arena footprint, think in terms of everything the city is doing in the East Village and Vic Park. If Vic park portion of the green line and new arena was transferred into an enhanced East Village CRL, that would expand the civic portion well above WV Calgary Next proposal.

artvandelay
Jun 14, 2017, 8:42 PM
Cage is a smart fella.

suburbia
Jun 14, 2017, 8:47 PM
What is the next step here? Brett Wilson said the city is dragging its heels. What does the city need to do right now? Or are we waiting for a new proposal from CSEC?

Brett Wilson is not involved.

suburbia
Jun 14, 2017, 8:49 PM
The major problem, IMHO, is the player collective bargain agreement that puts all ticket receipts to the club into the cap room and pay calculations.

That's an interesting point. I wonder why the Calgary Flames "truth tellers" are not pointing this out?

Fuzz
Jun 14, 2017, 8:49 PM
Brett Wilson is not involved.

Thanks, Poirot.

suburbia
Jun 14, 2017, 8:53 PM
I heard a very interesting confidential tidbit that leads me to believe there is significant traction with the Victoria Park location.

It also suggests that the decision to utilize the Victoria Park site will be significantly more expensive to taxpayers than the WV alternative when all is said and done.

The only way I can see that happening is if the project integrates the BMO centre plans, and presents the arena with this together as one bigger project. Even then it is hard to fathom, but is conceivable.

The BMO project includes hall F, removal of the Corral, development of an integrated convention centre, and a hotel.

In such a scenario, it could be foreseeable that the City provides a pinch more, but then they also get another building / convention centre out of it (which on its own as a separate facility would have been $800M-$900M itself).

outoftheice
Jun 14, 2017, 11:01 PM
The only way I can see that happening is if the project integrates the BMO centre plans, and presents the arena with this together as one bigger project. Even then it is hard to fathom, but is conceivable.

The BMO project includes hall F, removal of the Corral, development of an integrated convention centre, and a hotel.

In such a scenario, it could be foreseeable that the City provides a pinch more, but then they also get another building / convention centre out of it (which on its own as a separate facility would have been $800M-$900M itself).

I think you're probably close to what we'll see. Instead of a CalgaryNext proposal that incorporated an arena/stadium/field-house my money is on a 'VicParkNext' proposal that will incorporate a new arena that is tied into a BMO expansion that would allow the arena to be used as over-flow convention space and will also tie into a revised Stampede Trail entertainment district proposal.

speedog
Jun 15, 2017, 12:33 AM
Thread should be retitled as it will not be a downtown arena.

H.E.Pennypacker
Jun 15, 2017, 3:07 AM
The costs associated with WV cleanup and infrastructure are sunk, in that they will need to be borne eventually. I'd put what's being discussed in Vic Park in the category of "nice to have" rather than essential to the city. It will result in a better project if everything comes to fruition, but likely greater expense to taxpayers.

Apologies for being so cryptic, but I really can't reveal much other than that things are in motion behind the scenes.

Don't think in terms of the arena footprint, think in terms of everything the city is doing in the East Village and Vic Park. If Vic park portion of the green line and new arena was transferred into an enhanced East Village CRL, that would expand the civic portion well above WV Calgary Next proposal.

Cage is a smart fella.

This makes a lot of sense. The EV's success can justify enhancing the CRL's into the Vic Park area for a new arena/green line/mixed used area. Definitely at more cost overall but the benefit and chances for success are far greater than starting from scratch in the West Village (which even if it does cost the City less, it's more of a risk for success IMO).

I knew the City has been seriously looking at Vic Park as an alternative option. I was informed how the City would acquire the lands, seem some documentation on concepts, and done some analysis personally on the area prior to me leaving the City not too long ago.

Chopper
Jun 15, 2017, 3:26 AM
It will be more fun if the new arena will be right beside crossiron and the new mall. That will devastate all of the people here. The Balzac Next.

suburbia
Jun 15, 2017, 3:48 AM
It will be more fun if the new arena will be right beside crossiron and the new mall. That will devastate all of the people here. The Balzac Next.

That would be awesome. Great idea Chopper. There is also the horse track there, so all the pieces fit.

Rollerstud98
Jun 15, 2017, 5:03 AM
Pretty much walking distance for me to get home too!

speedog
Jun 15, 2017, 5:22 AM
That would be awesome. Great idea Chopper. There is also the horse track there, so all the pieces fit.

How so?

Please enlighten us with your wisdom.

Rollerstud98
Jun 15, 2017, 5:38 AM
I'm thinking there was a fair amount of sarcasm there

Fuzz
Jun 15, 2017, 12:06 PM
Ask Ottawa how well their arena outside the city worked for them.

speedog
Jun 15, 2017, 12:08 PM
I'm thinking there was a fair amount of sarcasm there

Are you sure considering who the poster is.

suburbia
Jun 16, 2017, 12:53 AM
Are you sure considering who the poster is.

The irony is, while pointing the finger and claiming predictability, it is really you who are way more predictable. LOL!

speedog
Jun 16, 2017, 2:18 AM
The irony is, while pointing the finger and claiming predictability, it is really you who are way more predictable. LOL!

Are you really that sure about that - your posts all have quite a similar theme to them.

CrossedTheTracks
Jun 16, 2017, 2:30 AM
Thread should be retitled as it will not be a downtown arena.

Why? If you want to say that neither CalgaryNext nor a Victoria Park arena are "downtown", I'm fine with that, but an arena at Olympic Way & 12 Ave is closer to more of downtown than CalgaryNext! :)

suburbia
Jun 16, 2017, 3:44 AM
Are you really that sure about that

Yes I am sure.

technomad
Jun 16, 2017, 1:10 PM
I think you're probably close to what we'll see. Instead of a CalgaryNext proposal that incorporated an arena/stadium/field-house my money is on a 'VicParkNext' proposal that will incorporate a new arena that is tied into a BMO expansion that would allow the arena to be used as over-flow convention space and will also tie into a revised Stampede Trail entertainment district proposal.

This makes a lot of sense. The EV's success can justify enhancing the CRL's into the Vic Park area for a new arena/green line/mixed used area. Definitely at more cost overall but the benefit and chances for success are far greater than starting from scratch in the West Village (which even if it does cost the City less, it's more of a risk for success IMO).

I knew the City has been seriously looking at Vic Park as an alternative option. I was informed how the City would acquire the lands, seem some documentation on concepts, and done some analysis personally on the area prior to me leaving the City not too long ago.

Hopefully the city is going into full acquisition mode here.. massive potential in vic park, and based on how east village is going, I think CMLC is the right group to take it forward :tup:

Still think a new stadium could get into play, will be interesting to see how ambitious the plans are.. if the convention center expansion is going ahead, might not be a bad idea to plan for a +15 connection south from city hall into BMO too

suburbia
Jun 16, 2017, 1:31 PM
if the convention center expansion is going ahead, might not be a bad idea to plan for a +15 connection south from city hall into BMO too

Why?

I think the primary pedestrian path would be up Olympic Way to other entertainment / tourist items, and where the hotels are.

Not sure what the value to connect all the was to City Hall via a +15 would be. The connection to that more central part of the DT would be via the train anyway.

technomad
Jun 16, 2017, 1:57 PM
Why?

I think the primary pedestrian path would be up Olympic Way to other entertainment / tourist items, and where the hotels are.

Not sure what the value to connect all the was to City Hall via a +15 would be. The connection to that more central part of the DT would be via the train anyway.

as an alternate means of getting there from DT, and to link up all the hotels that are already on the +15 network. trains can be very crowded depending on time of day, and it's always nice to have the indoor option in winter.

a +15 straight south would parallel Macleod, and wouldn't present much threat to a well developed stampede trail imo

suburbia
Jun 16, 2017, 4:41 PM
as an alternate means of getting there from DT, and to link up all the hotels that are already on the +15 network. trains can be very crowded depending on time of day, and it's always nice to have the indoor option in winter.

a +15 straight south would parallel Macleod, and wouldn't present much threat to a well developed stampede trail imo

I guess we'll see what happens. In my mind, the closest walking accessible hotels will be in East Village, in vicinity of the NMC, Library, and via the Olympic Way / entertainment development corridor.

If looking at major hotels in the core that would be BMO convention centre interest, they would be the Palliser, Hyatt, Sheraton, etc. Most would be a pinch of a ways from the BMO convention centre, largely because how long it takes to walk there (a convention is not a vacation where a longer stroll would be seen as positive). So I think the train will end up being critical, and event by event arrangements for extending the free fare zone for delegates will need to be managed (as is the case now for higher profile BMO centre events). Hotels for conventions are often not just for accommodations in the traditional sense, but also for satellite sessions. That is an element that will still need to be navigated in the new plan - by having a massive enhancement to mid and smaller rooms at the BMO and/or with addition of an appropriately flexible and capable hotel in the vicinity of Olympic Way. It is too bad that one or more of the condos along the nearby stretch of McLeod didn't have a major hotel element integrated. That would have been ideal.

technomad
Jun 19, 2017, 1:49 PM
Well there's still room nearby for new hotel builds, maybe the Marriot west of guardian will come back to life? I'm just thinking that any really large conference is going exhaust the nearby hotels, and that the fairmont/mariot/hyatt cluster with the telus conference center would make a decent satellite facility.

linking it with +15 lets the marketing folks boost the venue's indoor square footage number, and after sitting through sessions for a couple of hours, that 10 minute walk between sites might just be what some people are looking for.

Fuzz
Jun 19, 2017, 2:33 PM
The problem is, if you want to cross the tracks I think you need a +45.

technomad
Jun 19, 2017, 3:01 PM
certainly not an insurmountable problem.. I'm sure the parkade planned for the south side of 9av will be taller than that. not sure if the empty lots above red line tunnel could be developed or not, but even if the +15/45 connected from the parkade directly into the marriot site, the bridge wouldn't be much longer than what's being built at Chinook