HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Projects & Construction Updates


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #741  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 9:12 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
I would make an exception if the arena would be the cornerstone of the revitalization of a blighted area, although even then tax abatement might be better than outright funding.
A good point, but one could argue that in the Calgary case the new arena is most likely going into an area that is already undergoing revitalization (east Beltline and East Village).

Just playing devils advocate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #742  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 9:16 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime View Post
A good point, but one could argue that in the Calgary case the new arena is most likely going into an area that is already undergoing revitalization (east Beltline and East Village).

Just playing devils advocate.
I agree, that's why although I don't care that much either way, I would be ok with not funding a new arena.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #743  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 9:16 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
I would make an exception if the arena would be the cornerstone of the revitalization of a blighted area, although even then tax abatement might be better than outright funding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime View Post
A good point, but one could argue that in the Calgary case the new arena is most likely going into an area that is already undergoing revitalization (east Beltline and East Village).

Just playing devils advocate.
Stadiums rarely attract additional development and tax revenue to offset the cost of the stadium itself. Stadium boosters will always say things like "it will bring in additional tax revenue for the city", but usually this is a shell game, as the increased business from the stadium is just due to people shifting money from other things in the city. Not always the case, but I am always wary of people advocating public money for stadiums and other sports facilities (community soccer fields and arenas are a different matter IMO).
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #744  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 9:32 PM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Stadiums rarely attract additional development and tax revenue to offset the cost of the stadium itself. Stadium boosters will always say things like "it will bring in additional tax revenue for the city", but usually this is a shell game, as the increased business from the stadium is just due to people shifting money from other things in the city. Not always the case, but I am always wary of people advocating public money for stadiums and other sports facilities (community soccer fields and arenas are a different matter IMO).
I think that a city working with the team to build an arena at the best location is something that should be in the city's best interest. Perhaps it takes a little bit of money infusion to help that, but at a certain point, the benefit would be gone. However, I agree with you that cities should not fund sports stadiums for teams in any great amount. Subsidizing billionaires.

I think that the funding scheme proposed up in Edmonton is quite bizarre. So much public money proposed to go into a project that benefits the public almost nothing, and then additional public funding to reduce the billionaire owners portion through a "management fee".

Essentially, the city is building an arena, letting the Oilers Ownership make all the profit on it, and then paying Katz EXTRA to manage the arena for the city. If the Flames were asking for the same model of financing, they'd be laughed out the door.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #745  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 9:57 PM
Innersoul1's Avatar
Innersoul1 Innersoul1 is offline
City of Blinding Lights
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
I know I will raise the ire of many on this discussion- but I don't think a single public dollar should be spent on either the yeg or yyc arenas. Education, health care, police, infrastructure- sure. But entertainment should never receive public funding.
There is a real separation between entertainment and "the arts" why can't we have a facility that can accommoadte both. I have always been an advocate for any arena to have a modern concerts facility that might be used for arts organization (other than the usual mid-sized concerts).

Any thoughts?
__________________
Sweet dreams are made of cheese. Who am I to diss a brie?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #746  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 10:09 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innersoul1 View Post
There is a real separation between entertainment and "the arts" why can't we have a facility that can accommoadte both. I have always been an advocate for any arena to have a modern concerts facility that might be used for arts organization (other than the usual mid-sized concerts).

Any thoughts?
The small libertarian / Benthamite is coming out in me: I don't think the arts should receive funding either. I am sure people like the opera, symphony, ballet, etc etc, but I don't think government's role is to fund them. Tax breaks, sure, but never, ever direct funding.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #747  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 10:13 PM
polishavenger polishavenger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
I know I will raise the ire of many on this discussion- but I don't think a single public dollar should be spent on either the yeg or yyc arenas. Education, health care, police, infrastructure- sure. But entertainment should never receive public funding.
I agree to a point. I only think public money should be spent on stadiums if approved by super majority in a plebiscite as a one time property tax levy. That way the cost is shared progressively and the spending has overwhelming public support.

The stadium should be publicly owned and run at a profit, so no special deals with sporting tenants with sweetheart concession revenues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #748  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2012, 10:21 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by polishavenger View Post
I agree to a point. I only think public money should be spent on stadiums if approved by super majority in a plebiscite as a one time property tax levy. That way the cost is shared progressively and the spending has overwhelming public support.

The stadium should be publicly owned and run at a profit, so no special deals with sporting tenants with sweetheart concession revenues.
Would you agree that funding for a MMA arena if it had overwhelming majority support would be acceptable? How about a cat museum composed entirely of photos of cats doing funny things? Or a lawn bowling stadium?

I don't see in any way how entertainment is a public good, and therefore should not receive public support. Popularity does not equal public benefit. It just means popularity. I don't believe it is the government's role to subsidize goods that are a matter of taste. If so, we should be sending subsidy cheques to Activision for making Call of Duty 3. This is a serious argument. If people want a subsidy for watching flames games, I think the same subsidy should be applied to other forms of entertainment, including video games, movies, etc etc.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #749  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 7:52 PM
jeffwhit's Avatar
jeffwhit jeffwhit is offline
effete latte-lifter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Aalborg, DK
Posts: 3,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
The small libertarian / Benthamite is coming out in me: I don't think the arts should receive funding either. I am sure people like the opera, symphony, ballet, etc etc, but I don't think government's role is to fund them. Tax breaks, sure, but never, ever direct funding.
Just so you know, there, in all of western civilization, has never been a time when the arts weren't directly funded by some form of government. So, one might wonder what the state of the arts would be without some direct government funding.

In Canada arts organizations can't even offer the tax incentives that their American counterparts enjoy in order to attract donors.

In reality does it matter if the government contribution to the arts come in the form of tax credits or direct funding, especially since the direct funding model almost is always far less of a burden on the government coffers once the accounting is done? I understand, ideologically there is a substantial difference, but when does ideology ever have anything to do with reality?
__________________
Arts!: Click to listen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #750  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 8:09 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffwhit View Post
Just so you know, there, in all of western civilization, has never been a time when the arts weren't directly funded by some form of government. So, one might wonder what the state of the arts would be without some direct government funding.

In Canada arts organizations can't even offer the tax incentives that their American counterparts enjoy in order to attract donors.

In reality does it matter if the government contribution to the arts come in the form of tax credits or direct funding, especially since the direct funding model almost is always far less of a burden on the government coffers once the accounting is done? I understand, ideologically there is a substantial difference, but when does ideology ever have anything to do with reality?
Tax incentives 100%. I am all for that. I have no problem with offering tax breaks for the arts. I am also big on funding music and art programs in school. I am very supportive of reducing regulatory and tax burdens on the arts. But never direct funding.

Here is the difference between tax breaks and direct funding. Direct funding implies a judgement. We will fund the symphony, but not the break dancers performing in the street. Ballet gets funding, but not a graffiti artist. What about video games? Bad Hollywood movies? When we directly fund art, we imply that one is worthy of funding and the other is not. Who is to say that the thousands of people watching monster truck events are any less worthy of subsidy than those attending the opera? Both are watching a performance. Should Rammstein get a subsidy when they go on tour? It is an old aristocratic idea of "high art" and "low art" and I want no part of it.

I might be pulling this out of my ass, but most funding for the arts in previous centuries came from wealthy aristocrats or the church who would pay composers/musicians/etc to do their work (Beethoven for one IIRC). The government didn't pay for it out of tax revenue (some governments did sometimes).

Look, if people think arts are important, they should go pay the proper price to see them.


EDIT- Oh, just one last thing- I am totally in support of public art. The difference is that it is non-exclusionary.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #751  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 9:11 PM
polishavenger polishavenger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Would you agree that funding for a MMA arena if it had overwhelming majority support would be acceptable? How about a cat museum composed entirely of photos of cats doing funny things? Or a lawn bowling stadium?

I don't see in any way how entertainment is a public good, and therefore should not receive public support. Popularity does not equal public benefit. It just means popularity. I don't believe it is the government's role to subsidize goods that are a matter of taste. If so, we should be sending subsidy cheques to Activision for making Call of Duty 3. This is a serious argument. If people want a subsidy for watching flames games, I think the same subsidy should be applied to other forms of entertainment, including video games, movies, etc etc.
The primary difference between a stadium and the examples you chose is the multi use element of a stadium vs the very specific forms you list. A stadium can be seen as a piece of public infrastructure that allows for concerts, trade shows, sporting events, etc. The problem I see comes up when sports teams coerce, or use connections with politicians to subsidize their private gains with public funds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #752  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 9:14 PM
polishavenger polishavenger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
I might be pulling this out of my ass, but most funding for the arts in previous centuries came from wealthy aristocrats or the church who would pay composers/musicians/etc to do their work (Beethoven for one IIRC). The government didn't pay for it out of tax revenue (some governments did sometimes).
Neither here nor there in terms of relevancy, but where do you think the church and aristocrats got their money from?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #753  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 9:20 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by polishavenger View Post
Neither here nor there in terms of relevancy, but where do you think the church and aristocrats got their money from?
Tithes and land respectively.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #754  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2012, 4:23 PM
jeffwhit's Avatar
jeffwhit jeffwhit is offline
effete latte-lifter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Aalborg, DK
Posts: 3,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Tithes and land respectively.
Just to enlighten you a little:

http://www.madaboutbeethoven.com/pag...trons_main.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...rs_and_patrons

Mozart worked directly for the Emperor of Austria for the majority of his adult life.

Also, just so you know, patronage to a composer is one thing, you do you think employed the musicians and crew at the state owned opera houses?

Aristocracy and Church are completely analogous to today's government in terms of relative historical roles.

Also, when the CPO gives free performances to the terminally ill, the poor, tens of thousands of school children, and other people who are unable to pay to see the orchestra play in a traditional setting, that is where the government funding comes in. I think you are probably unaware of how government grant funding works for the arts; there are no cheques just written to most arts organizations that are aren't tied to a long and arduous process of fulfilling a lengthy list of requirements for using the money for example the purposes I listed above.
__________________
Arts!: Click to listen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #755  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2012, 4:38 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffwhit View Post
Just to enlighten you a little:

http://www.madaboutbeethoven.com/pag...trons_main.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...rs_and_patrons

Mozart worked directly for the Emperor of Austria for the majority of his adult life.

Also, just so you know, patronage to a composer is one thing, you do you think employed the musicians and crew at the state owned opera houses?

Aristocracy and Church are completely analogous to today's government in terms of relative historical roles.

Also, when the CPO gives free performances to the terminally ill, the poor, tens of thousands of school children, and other people who are unable to pay to see the orchestra play in a traditional setting, that is where the government funding comes in. I think you are probably unaware of how government grant funding works for the arts; there are no cheques just written to most arts organizations that are aren't tied to a long and arduous process of fulfilling a lengthy list of requirements for using the money for example the purposes I listed above.
Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I am all for paying for kids or the poor to go see the CPO. Perhaps I just don't understand the funding system well enough. You may have turned me on funding for things like the CPO. But I stand by no government funding for the Flames or Oilers.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #756  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2012, 5:21 PM
polishavenger polishavenger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Tithes and land respectively.
Taxes by any other name are still taxes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #757  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2012, 5:27 PM
polishavenger polishavenger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
But I stand by no government funding for the Flames or Oilers.
I agree, but that doesnt mean the city cant build a stadium based on a long term lease from a sports team and a solid business case for other uses. The benefit of the city building and the sports team leasing is that the city has deeper pockets with better financing terms, and can focus more on being the landlord and renting the building out while the individual users focus on the strenghts in runnng their respective businesses.

I would like the city to build a stadium in a partnership with retail/office/residential developers. The sale of air rights would offset some of the capital costs of the stadium, and a master planned project can create a critical mass that would make year round, 24/7 use a real possibility. This way a stadium is a money maker, not a subsidy. The stampede grounds make this a real possibility, and to a lesser extent, so would the Mcmahon area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #758  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2012, 9:24 PM
MichaelS's Avatar
MichaelS MichaelS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,402
Hasn't the city kind of already done that, by providing a stadium on the stampede grounds already? The saddle dome. Why spend hundreds of millions more so the flames can have more box seats?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #759  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2012, 8:18 PM
jeffwhit's Avatar
jeffwhit jeffwhit is offline
effete latte-lifter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Aalborg, DK
Posts: 3,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I am all for paying for kids or the poor to go see the CPO. Perhaps I just don't understand the funding system well enough. You may have turned me on funding for things like the CPO. But I stand by no government funding for the Flames or Oilers.
Not offended at all. Just pointing out that funding for the arts works in a very controlled way, and also, the funding is granted through arms-reach organizations like Calgary Arts Development, and AFA, so there isn't really a value judgement by the governement on what gets funding. I'm positive the AFA and Calgary Arts Development has given grants to the kinds of things you mentioned earlier on this thread. I mean, thing like Chad Vangaalen's first big album received AFA funding, it's right in the liner notes.

As for public money for the Flames and Oilers - I agree, these are private, for profit businesses. However, I think a city owning, or having an ownership stake in a major league arena is a benefit to the city.
__________________
Arts!: Click to listen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #760  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2012, 2:39 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffwhit View Post
Not offended at all. Just pointing out that funding for the arts works in a very controlled way, and also, the funding is granted through arms-reach organizations like Calgary Arts Development, and AFA, so there isn't really a value judgement by the governement on what gets funding. I'm positive the AFA and Calgary Arts Development has given grants to the kinds of things you mentioned earlier on this thread. I mean, thing like Chad Vangaalen's first big album received AFA funding, it's right in the liner notes.

As for public money for the Flames and Oilers - I agree, these are private, for profit businesses. However, I think a city owning, or having an ownership stake in a major league arena is a benefit to the city.
I am all for CADA. One thing I think CADA should have a larger role in is public art. Basically, I don't think the City of Calgary should have any part in developing arts strategies- that should be put in the hands of organizations like CADA.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Projects & Construction Updates
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:29 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.