HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2019, 6:05 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djeffery View Post
The new Moncton arena, 8800 seats, was built for a bit over $100million.
Thats probably the template. Looks like it was $113M for 8800 seats. Add 1200 seats, inflation, and maybe a few extra bells and whistles and you get the $135M price tag mentioned.

Place Bell at 10,000 seats cost $200M but that had a community rink in addition to the main rink. It probably also had a lot more high end features than Moncton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2019, 5:06 PM
mattgrande's Avatar
mattgrande mattgrande is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,181
https://twitter.com/JohnPaulDanko/st...91661193084928

^ Interesting numbers on the profit/loss for the arena. Concerts make the most money, by far, for the stadium.
__________________
Livin' At The Corner Of Dude And Catastrophe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2019, 1:47 AM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,561
Some interesting nuggets from Bulldogs lease negotiation docs just a few years after they arrived at Copps:

At the November 29, 2000 meeting of the H.E.C.F.I. Board of Directors, staff was directed to develop a proposal for the Hamilton Bulldogs Hockey Team (Bulldogs) that would give further revenues to the Bulldogs based solely upon increased attendance. H.E.C.F.I. staff did so and made a proposal to the Bulldogs which included offering them fifty cents per person from H.E.C.F.l.‘s food and beverage commissions for paid attendance in excess of an average of 4,000 per game (based upon the average for the entire season). As well, H.E.C.F.I. staff proposed to give the Bulldogs the rights to sell the facia, scoreclock, curtain and concourse advertising space in Copps Coliseum provided that the Bulldogs guaranteed that H.E.C.F.I. would receive $150,000 annually from the team for doing so.

The Bulldogs have rejected this proposal and have reiterated their previous demands. They are arguing that their licence agreement should be similar to the one that currently exists for the Hamilton Tiger Cats.

The following are the elements of the Bulldogs’ proposal:

That no rent be paid for the use of Copps Coliseum. In addition, it should be noted that H.E.C.F.I. would continue to pay for game day labour charges (ticket takers, security, ushers, etc.), box office costs, credit card charges, operating supplies, etc. Currently the Bulldogs pay H.E.C.F.I. a licence fee of $3,000 per game, pay net office rent of $9,430 (after deduction of property taxes) and pay H.E.C.F.I. an annual fee of $21,000 for the
right to lease the private boxes for their games.

That the hockey team assume full control of all building signage and that they pay H.E.C.F.I. 25% of all “net revenues generated after production and labour costs associated with sales.”

That the Bulldogs receive 100% of food and beverage concession sales at their hockey games.


The Bulldogs were averaging around 5K attendees a home game at that point. They’re now averaging just over 4K at home.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2019, 2:24 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,561
Bulldogs Lime Ridge Mall arena idea has councillors flummoxed
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Sept 22 2019)

Hamilton Bulldogs owner Michael Andlauer has done it again.

His proposal to share the cost of building a new arena at Lime Ridge Mall with the city has councillors scurrying like headless chickens.

Or, as Coun. Terry Whitehead put it, "looking like Keystone Cops."

The flashpoint was a debate over whether councillors should withdraw their invitation asking Andlauer to publicly speak to them about his joint proposal with mall owner Cadillac Fairview.

Andlauer told them he's happy to attend the Oct. 2 general issues meeting but declined their request to publicly release the confidential proposal.

That prompted a motion last week from Sam Merulla that the invitation be "conditional" on the proposal's release.

Merulla argued if Andlauer won't openly discuss how much money he and Cadillac Fairview want the city to pony up, they may as well "uninvite" him because his appearance would just be a waste of time.

That got things rolling.

Judi Partridge agreed any request for city funding needs to be openly discussed. Esther Pauls said Andlauer should be given a chance to address them regardless.

Whitehead warned council will be sending a bad message to investors if it tries to force Andlauer to negotiate in public. Jason Farr opined the real issue is not about building an arena at the mall but developing an entertainment precinct downtown.

Tom Jackson was pleased Andlauer accepted the invitation and wants the chance to "grill" him. Lloyd Ferguson agreed and said it would be a "travesty" to "uninvite" him.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger noted council doesn't expect Andlauer to divulge details of a broader private sector development deal with Cadillac Fairview, but the city needs to know what he's asking from taxpayers.

As the discussion went round and round, Merulla's original motion got watered down. Instead of pulling the invitation, they just asked Andlauer to publicly state how much he wants the city to contribute.

It's clear what's happening here. Some councillors are deeply frustrated that the Bulldog/Cadillac Fairview proposal is distracting attention from a city consultant's recommendation to build a $130-million sports and entertainment complex downtown in partnership with the private sector.

The overall idea is to leverage city-owned assets to build a new convention centre, replace the aging FirstOntario Centre with a new 10,000-seat arena, and redevelop the existing sites with commercial and residential projects to generate new property taxes.

But the Bulldog/Cadillac Fairview proposal for a 6,000 to 7,500 seat arena at Lime Ridge Mall landed at the same time, discombobulating council and sparking calls to evaluate the idea.

Both projects obviously require city funding. The downside to a smaller arena is it wouldn't attract the major concert acts a 10,000 seater would. On the other hand, in the absence of knowing the financial details of the Lime Ridge Mall idea, it's impossible to compare costs and benefits.


Read it in full here.


Thoughts:

• Inflation-adjusted, Cadillac Fairview has invested roughly $85 million into expanding/enhancing the Lime Ridge Mall property since buying the property in 1998. Based on the spitball estimates available to us, that's apparently what the City would be expected to contribute to a new 10,000-seat arena (a 6,000-seat arena twinned with an 1,800-space parking garage might be more expensive still).

November 2017: "Andlauer says his time touring Ontario and visiting other OHL arenas has made him eager to get the ball rolling on a 5,000- to 10,000-seat arena, which he expects would cost between $60 million and $100 million depending on the size and scope. Andlauer says he would pay half and let the city decide where it goes. “I don’t want to dictate that. I don’t know any better than the city councillors who represent the city,” Andlauer said."

• Andlauer's "confidential proposal" indicates that this arena, along with a multi-storey parking garage that connects directly to LRM, would sit on land leased from Cadillac Fairview.

• In April 2018, council's GIC voted to encourage retail owners such as Cadillac Fairview to dedicate some of the expansive real estate around their malls to affordable housing density, an element that is entirely absent from the HB/CF proposal.

• LRM is reportedly the largest property taxpayer in the city, paying $11.5 million in taxes in 2017.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan

Last edited by thistleclub; Sep 22, 2019 at 3:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2019, 6:14 PM
bigguy1231 bigguy1231 is offline
Concerned Citizen
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,181
The only reason Andlauer and CF want the city involved is so they won't have to pay property taxes on the building and parking garage. If they build it privately they would be on the hook for property taxes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2019, 9:21 PM
Djeffery Djeffery is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
The only reason Andlauer and CF want the city involved is so they won't have to pay property taxes on the building and parking garage. If they build it privately they would be on the hook for property taxes.
No property taxes would be paid on a new arena downtown either and more city money would presumably go in to that as well. I don't think it's true though that there wouldn't be any taxes paid. CF would retain ownership of the land and lease it to whatever entity is building the arena. If I own a 10 storey office building and I lease one floor to the city for whatever department they need space for, do I pay taxes on only 90% of the building now? I admit to not being fully versed on how property taxes work for the landlord when they lease to a municipality though.

Anyway, I don't personally think a 7,000 or so seat arena is going to fly with the people of Hamilton, no matter where it's built, if the city is ponying up a chunk for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2019, 1:12 AM
bigguy1231 bigguy1231 is offline
Concerned Citizen
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djeffery View Post
No property taxes would be paid on a new arena downtown either and more city money would presumably go in to that as well. I don't think it's true though that there wouldn't be any taxes paid. CF would retain ownership of the land and lease it to whatever entity is building the arena. If I own a 10 storey office building and I lease one floor to the city for whatever department they need space for, do I pay taxes on only 90% of the building now? I admit to not being fully versed on how property taxes work for the landlord when they lease to a municipality though.

Anyway, I don't personally think a 7,000 or so seat arena is going to fly with the people of Hamilton, no matter where it's built, if the city is ponying up a chunk for it.
Leasing a floor in a building that you don't own is not the same as being the owner of the building. So if the city is leasing a floor in a building the buildings owner still has to pay property taxes.

On the other had if the city was the primary owner of the building as they would be in the case of an arena then they wouldn't pay property taxes since public entities don't pay property taxes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2019, 2:12 AM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-Bur-gher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Burlington
Posts: 2,801
Dreschel seems to think he's our very own local Geraldo, but a missed point is that "flummoxed" is the way council generally works. Always has, always will. Doesn't matter who the new faces are but they all seem to seamlessly fit into the plotline. Many city councils are like this. They live in a teapot, and a minor tempest or two is the only way to liven things up. Most city council business is very boring and generic.

All due respect to Andlauer for having skin in the game and trying to press for change, but until he makes the financial ask for Lime Ridge known, he's just playing a minor character in Downton HamOnt Abbey who will be quickly forgotten otherwise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2019, 10:35 AM
Djeffery Djeffery is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
Leasing a floor in a building that you don't own is not the same as being the owner of the building. So if the city is leasing a floor in a building the buildings owner still has to pay property taxes.

On the other had if the city was the primary owner of the building as they would be in the case of an arena then they wouldn't pay property taxes since public entities don't pay property taxes.
Is it clear the city would own the arena at Lime Ridge Mall, or just be a financial backer of it? Also, if the land is owned by CF and leased to the arena consortium (or directly to the city), what does that do in regards to taxes? That's why I drew the comparison to the city leasing a floor in a privately owned building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2019, 4:05 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djeffery View Post
Is it clear the city would own the arena at Lime Ridge Mall, or just be a financial backer of it? Also, if the land is owned by CF and leased to the arena consortium (or directly to the city), what does that do in regards to taxes? That's why I drew the comparison to the city leasing a floor in a privately owned building.
I believe when a City in Ontario Leases parking lot space from a private owner to run a Green P parking lot, the lot is NOT tax exempt despite being run as a green P. A lot of situations in Toronto where the City leases space from a private building in their parking garage to run a green P.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 1:46 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by king10 View Post
Place Bell at 10,000 seats cost $200M but that had a community rink in addition to the main rink. It probably also had a lot more high end features than Moncton.
Place Bell is also a problematic precedent for private sector investment: The City of Laval footed 60% of the cost, and the province of Quebec covered another 25%. And there's been no suggestion that the province is partnering on Hamilton's arena.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 3:06 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by thistleclub View Post
Place Bell is also a problematic precedent for private sector investment: The City of Laval footed 60% of the cost, and the province of Quebec covered another 25%. And there's been no suggestion that the province is partnering on Hamilton's arena.
Yes, thats probably why the consultant recommended a budget of $130M vs the $200M used to build Place Bell. Fewer bells and whistles for sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 4:33 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by king10 View Post
Yes, thats probably why the consultant recommended a budget of $130M vs the $200M used to build Place Bell. Fewer bells and whistles for sure.
E&Y's Sports and Entertainment Venue Case Studies (for the completed venues, at any rate) also have public subsidy running between $80 million and $226 million (73% to 94%).

Andlauer's pledge to contribute $30 million to $50 million — 50% of capital costs — would be a substantial departure from the way these things tend to play out.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 5:04 PM
bigguy1231 bigguy1231 is offline
Concerned Citizen
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by thistleclub View Post
E&Y's Sports and Entertainment Venue Case Studies (for the completed venues, at any rate) also have public subsidy running between $80 million and $226 million (73% to 94%).

Andlauer's pledge to contribute $30 million to $50 million — 50% of capital costs — would be a substantial departure from the way these things tend to play out.
The bulldogs are looking to build a 6000 seat arena. If they are looking to invest 50 million then they can afford to build it themselves. I have never seen anywhere where Andlaurer said he was going to invest 30 - 50 million, probably more like 3 - 5 million.

The city would be better off spending 50 or 60 million to upgrade FOC rather than waste money putting an arena at a suburban mall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 5:16 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguy1231 View Post
The bulldogs are looking to build a 6000 seat arena. If they are looking to invest 50 million then they can afford to build it themselves. I have never seen anywhere where Andlaurer said he was going to invest 30 - 50 million, probably more like 3 - 5 million.
You may be right. I was going off his statements of mid-November 2017, referenced glancingly in the Spec's most recent coverage.

Global News: "Andlauer says his time touring Ontario and visiting other OHL arenas has made him eager to get the ball rolling on a 5,000- to 10,000-seat arena, which he expects would cost between $60 million and $100 million depending on the size and scope. Andlauer says he would pay half and let the city decide where it goes."

Hamilton Spectator: "The owner of the Hamilton Bulldogs has followed up his public call for the building of a new, smaller arena to replace FirstOntario by saying he'd be willing to personally pay for half of it. Michael Andlauer had previously said he'd be willing to cover a "substantial" amount for any such project. But pressed for a more-precise figure — tough to do when nobody knows exactly what a rink would cost — he offered the 50-50 proposition…. "I don't want to dictate where it's going to go. I don't know any better (than others). I think the city councillors who represent all the citizens in the city, they should have their voice and they should know what's in the best interest."

$3 million to $5 million would cover half of a Grightmire-style reno. Maybe jazz up the city's historic OHL arena.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan

Last edited by thistleclub; Sep 24, 2019 at 8:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 11:54 PM
Jon Dalton's Avatar
Jon Dalton Jon Dalton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by king10 View Post
The entire roof needs to be replaced. The systems are 35 years old, outdated and not energy efficient. The cost to run a dated 17,000 seat arena far exceeds what it would cost to run a smaller 10,000 seat energy efficient arena.

As has been stated the cost to fix all the end of life parts of the building is over $50 million with the city still on the hook for annual maintenance and operating subsidy.

The list of things that need to be fixed are in the consultant report.
So do it, fix it. It's not even half the cost of building a smaller arena. Plus it's better for the environment. I don't understand why people would think that we can find find money for a brand new building if we can't find money to fix and maintain what we have.
__________________
360º of Hamilton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2019, 12:10 AM
Dr Awesomesauce's Avatar
Dr Awesomesauce Dr Awesomesauce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BEYOND THE OUTER RIM
Posts: 5,373
If it's not for an NHL team, I just don't see the point.

And yes, the environmental damage, to which there has been no cost allocated, would be significant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2019, 3:26 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Dalton View Post
So do it, fix it. It's not even half the cost of building a smaller arena. Plus it's better for the environment. I don't understand why people would think that we can find find money for a brand new building if we can't find money to fix and maintain what we have.
The City may want out of managing the arena business entirely. Nobody is going to buy FOC off them given its age and state of repair.

They currently subsidize operations at the arena to the tune of $1M a year. This doesn't even include capital rehab. The "fixing" it cost still leaves you with an outdated, non energy efficient building with high utility cost. Fixing it at $50M cost is strictly maintenance, not improvements.

A new arena agreement at a new arena would mean the City no longer provides a $1M annual operating subsidy nor does it have to pay for capital maintenance. The end result is City funding going to services and facilities at a more grass roots level like Community Centres, Pools, Municipal Arena, Housing etc.

I posted this type of funding scenario in another thread which compares costs of new build vs reno. The below doesn't even include the current operations subsidy which should be eliminated as part of a new venue agreement.

For example

New build
City Contribution = $85M up front
Land Sale proceeds of current arena= ($10M)
Net cost to City= $75M
Maintenance cost covered by the operator of the arena

Existing Arena
City Contribution = $50M for deferred maintenance within 5 years
City Contribution = $2M a year for annual maintenance over the next 25 years(based on current maintenance)
Total City Contribution = $100M

Difference between two scenarios = $25M

Last edited by king10; Sep 25, 2019 at 3:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2019, 6:43 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-Bur-gher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Burlington
Posts: 2,801
king10 raises a good point. People often forget about operating and maintenance costs. They're a key point to this and should be factored into the debate about whether capital spending is best allocated to reno/revamp FirstOntario Centre or invested in a new building.

And numbers for a convention centre and adjoining commercial/residential on the FOC site must be included as well.

This is a complex proposal. Even if Andlauer's idea takes flight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2019, 6:53 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,561
Quote:
For example

New build
City Contribution = $85M up front
Land Sale proceeds of current arena= ($10M)
Net cost to City= $75M
Maintenance cost covered by the operator of the arena

Existing Arena
City Contribution = $50M for deferred maintenance within 5 years
City Contribution = $2M a year for annual maintenance over the next 25 years(based on current maintenance)
Total City Contribution = $100M

Difference between two scenarios = $25M
As Ernst & Young projects that a new private-public facility could be operating within four or five years, if we assume that FOC will be operational between now and 2024, that $50M bill for deferred maintenance will be borne by the City under both scenarios.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
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 > Ontario > Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:45 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.