Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[esquire]

^ Edmonton got absolutely screwed on their arena deal so it's hardly surprising that they're pulling out all the stops to rationalize it.

I'd wager that the NHL is going to learn that Calgary and Edmonton are, despite some outward similarities, two very different beasts. The usual spectacle of Bettman threatening your city's status by holding a gun to the head of the local hockey team will not have the same effect in Calgary... Calgary is a lucrative hockey market with or without a new arena and everybody knows it. Nenshi can call the ownership group's bluff because he knows even if they move the Flames to Seattle, someone is going to move their team to the Saddledome to fill the gap. Calgary is simply too profitable a market not to have a team.

In much the same way that the Leafs could never play this game with Toronto, Calgary has outgrown these tactics common to smaller markets.

[Coldrsx]

^WTF are you talking about?

226mil of public dollars which will recouped through a CRL.

That CRL was conservatively estimated through a total development value of around $700mil or so in 30yrs.

3yrs in, we are at 2.5billion in development.

yup, terrible invest...

Rogers Place is being built for $483.5 million, including underground parking.
The Katz Group is paying $132.5-million. $112.8-million of their contribution will be paid to the City as rent over 35 years, and cover the City’s principal and interest costs. The remaining $19.7-million will be paid as cash.
The City of Edmonton’s contribution of $226-million to the arena building includes funding through a Community Revitalization Levy, new parking revenues, and redirecting the current Rexall Place subsidy.
$125-million will be collected through a ticket surcharge

https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...agreement.aspx

[osmo]

Development dollars =/= Property Tax dollars

$2.5 billion in development means what to the tax rolls over 30 years? As far as I'm concerned that means nothing to the Edmonton's initial investment.

Don't fall for the funny math, this is where these cities get screwd because pennies come in to the coffers once all the goodies and freebies are accounted for and the TIF fund ends up falling short.

[Coldrsx]

If you invest 1 and get 10 back, you would be pleased...as a tax payer, I am.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

broke down the big ones to see if $2.5 billion is possible. these aren't conservative by any means.
Arena (completed) say $500 million
CofE Tower (completed) say $350 million

These two don't really count either. The arena is, as I understand it, owned by the City of Edmonton. Therefore, the City collects 0 property tax from it. The City of Edmonton tower, though owned by the Katz Group (as I understand it), is almost exclusively leased by the City. Therefore, property taxes collected by the City are essentially returned to the Katz Group through rent.

[WhipperSnapper]

Where is this $2.5 billion investment? At most, it's a $1.5 billion in which most of the space would have been built anyways. There's a demand for residential units in Edmonton. They probably wouldn't have been built in such a short time frame however, it's risky of you guys to draw conclusions this early that this development will increase demand for urban living increasing tax revenue over what would have come naturally. There's a lot of questions that could be asked over the CofE leasing the first tower. It looks good for the Ice District CRL but, was it really a great decision for the rest of downtown that had plenty of space available?

[Coldrsx]

This report. Back half.

http://www.edmontondowntown.com/about.php?sid=83

[Calgarian]

The Edmonton and Calgary arenas and the revitalization associated with both are very different scenarios, too bad CSEC don't realize that. Starting to really dislike the Flames ownership group, they are playing very dirty with this, now it's an election issue!

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

These two don't really count either. The arena is, as I understand it, owned by the City of Edmonton. Therefore, the City collects 0 property tax from it. The City of Edmonton tower, though owned by the Katz Group (as I understand it), is almost exclusively leased by the City. Therefore, property taxes collected by the City are essentially returned to the Katz Group through rent.

Oh I know. I just wanted to cover all the bases. How can anyone sit there and spew the 2.5 billion dollar rhetoric without giving it a second thought? A stadium, a 1000 units, 350 hotel rooms and, a million square feet of commerical space is $2.5 billion?

[Coldrsx]

No... and yes, some development would have still occurred, but I am tell you firsthand that it accelerated development significantly and redirected development/growth/investment into the core. Multiple significant developments and smaller ones decided to go Downtown and or ahead because of Rogers Place and the 2.5-3mil people it brings Downtown.

[Calgarian]

Don't forget, a relocation fee is now $200 million, so the Flames aren't going anywhere!

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Don't forget, a relocation fee is now $200 million, so the Flames aren't going anywhere!

The Flames won't be moving anywhere anyway. Seattle will be expansion. If the Pens could play in Melon and the Wings in Joe Louis then the Flames can play in Saddledome for another 10-15 years.

The NHL has a track record of ensuring teams stay in their respective markets. Calgary won't be any different. This is very obvious negotiating tactics by ownership.

[Mikemike]

I was critical of the deal before it happened. I don't believe that the city got anything close to the best deal that we could but I am reasonably pleased with the results. There is far more associated development in a shorter time frame than in the vast majority of similar US deals. The city tower space would have been built anyway, and I believe that stantec would have had a new building in some form regardless, but the hotels weren't happening at the Northlands location, neither were the condos, including condos other than Katz' that are selling faster than they would otherwise.

Taxes on around $1.5b in residential should cover the arena part of the CRL, or something like $500m of commercial. With the Stantec Condos, the Marriot and Legends condos and the additional building that's under construction I would guess that
it's maybe 3/4 of the way there?

[esquire]

^ The NHL is now at a strategic disadvantage of cities having seen this scenario play out a number of times and they know how to handle it. Maybe if this had arisen 1996 the City of Calgary might have been cowed into building a new rink, but these days? They clearly know better.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Where is this $2.5 billion investment? At most, it's a $1.5 billion in which most of the space would have been built anyways. There's a demand for residential units in Edmonton. They probably wouldn't have been built in such a short time frame however, it's risky of you guys to draw conclusions this early that this development will increase demand for urban living increasing tax revenue over what would have come naturally. There's a lot of questions that could be asked over the CofE leasing the first tower. It looks good for the Ice District CRL but, was it really a great decision for the rest of downtown that had plenty of space available?

There are a lot of significant assumptions, lots of cheerleading and boosterism going on here for sure. How it will flesh out in the end is still yet to be seen.

I agree that some of the figures tossed around in the booster peice seem rather spurious

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The Flames won't be moving anywhere anyway. Seattle will be expansion. If the Pens could play in Melon and the Wings in Joe Louis then the Flames can play in Saddledome for another 10-15 years.

Excited for a team in Seattle actually, natural rival for the Canucks and it will even out the conferences.

What happens to the Thunderbirds while Key Arena is gutted and massively rebuilt? didn't see anything regarding them in the articles.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

The Edmonton and Calgary arenas and the revitalization associated with both are very different scenarios, too bad CSEC don't realize that. Starting to really dislike the Flames ownership group, they are playing very dirty with this, now it's an election issue!

So it should be.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

No... and yes, some development would have still occurred, but I am tell you firsthand that it accelerated development significantly and redirected development/growth/investment into the core. Multiple significant developments and smaller ones decided to go Downtown and or ahead because of Rogers Place and the 2.5-3mil people it brings Downtown.

You don't need to tell me firsthand. I already stated I believe it accelerated development. I'm not convinced that it'll create additional demand for urban living above what would naturally occur. We'll see if development continues or takes a pause in a few years time from an oversupply brought on by this accelerated development.

Sure. An arena attracts new business but, why, are you concluding the Oilers would have been stuck to play out of Northlands in perpetuity or that a new arena wouldn't have been built in or around downtown without your tax dollars at work? (and all future tax revenue goes into the city coffers/reducing the mill rate for everyone instead of repayment)

Same with the 2.5 billion number. It just doesn't add up but, people like don't even question it.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by rotten42

So it should be.

No it shouldn't be an election issue, the Flames are trying to get people to vote using emotion rather than logic, and people need to vote with their head!

[Coldrsx]

Again, firsthand I can tell you that I have spoken with dozens/hundred of people who have moved Downtown, are planning to or have thought about it BECAUSE of what is happening there now and the excitement that Rogers Place and the future Ice District is bringing... ALONG with many other positive changes.