Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Economists see little payoff for cities that subsidize pro sports facilities

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...407/story.html

It'll be years before we actually know if Edmonton's deal paid off. We already know it came at a huge cost with some shady back room deals, is it worth it ?

As an Economist, I typically agree with the poor decisions of public subsidies for private arenas. That said, outliers are just that and Edmonton is thankfully one of them.

240 simply does not understand Economics or investment.

But I applaud his diligence to portray something different.

We all should adhere to our values.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Not sure who 'you are', but you clearly lack the understanding of 'a deal'.

2.5-3million people, development of 2.5 Billion going towards 5, now 7.1 Billion is a terrible investment.

[Oilkountry]

man are the flames ever looking for a sweetheart deal here

What the City of Calgary’s arena proposal included

Under the City of Calgary’s latest funding proposal, the total cost of the new arena was pegged at $555 million plus indirect costs.

The city proposed a funding formula where they would pay a third of the total cost, Flames ownership would pay another third and users would pay for the final third through a ticket surcharge. Each share would be $185 million.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3746376/ma...of-arena-deal/

[esquire]

^ Regardless of whether the City of Calgary cuts a cheque for hundreds of millions of dollars or simply tells the Flames to go pound sand, the reality is that in the long run there will be NHL hockey in Calgary.

So why on earth would they do the former?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

man are the flames ever looking for a sweetheart deal here

Pro tip for aspiring hissy fit throwers (in this case, Calgary Sports and Entertainment): If the deal you walk away from looks reasonable, don't throw a fit and claim that you're getting screwed when you clearly aren't.

Good on the city for releasing their side of the story.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

man are the flames ever looking for a sweetheart deal here




http://globalnews.ca/news/3746376/ma...of-arena-deal/

Then let him get out of the way then and let somebody else come in and build it.

Ken King and Flames ownership have gobs of money.


Anyone who steps up to build this building will make tons of money.

You can tell these snake oil owners are not genuine because if the City says this "Sure we will pay for 50% of the area, but we want 50% of the profits generated" watch how the owners will scurry away and cry foul.

City of Calgary needs to hold firm, Ken King and his circus can get lost if you ask me. Calgarians are not going to fall for this USA style of billionaires crying for public handouts.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by speedog

Who provided the up front funding for the ticket levy portion which will be paid back over a couple of decades as well as the Oilers' owner's portion that'll be paid back in lease payments over the next couple of decades as well?

The City borrowed the money, but that hardly constitutes "back room and shady."

[240glt]

There were most definitely shady aspects to the Edmonton arena deal. Of couse the boosters and paid shills aren't going to admit that.

Calgary city's deal actually sounds very reasonable. It makes sense for the Flames to own the arena and pay taxes on it. There are next to zero benefits to Edmonton in owning it's arena. In 30 years when the city has control of it it will be an obsolete, worn out building and the folks here will be talking about the next one

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by 240glt

There were most definitely shady aspects to the Edmonton arena deal.

Do tell. We're still waiting....

[esquire]

Originally Posted by 240glt

There are next to zero benefits to Edmonton in owning it's arena. In 30 years when the city has control of it it will be an obsolete, worn out building and the folks here will be talking about the next one

Exactly. Owning the arena means nothing more than being responsible for all the liabilities that go along with it. Once all the value is extracted from the arena, the Oilers ownership walks away and leaves it to the city to clean up the mess.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by 240glt

In 30 years when the city has control of it it will be an obsolete, worn out building and the folks here will be talking about the next one

What are you smoking? IMO the shelf life on any post 1995 building is closer to 50-60 years and if they were built big enough (Canadian tire centre,honda centre,united centre) You can reconfigure them to today's standards and tomorrow's. You think bell centre and the rogers arena will be up for discussion in 8ish years? HA!

Rogers place will be around for 100+ years I can almost guarantee it. If rexall lasted 40+ as a limited concrete circle (and aged quite well considering). Than this spacious well thought out steel structure can be reconfigured over and over again to keep up with the ages. As can most of today's NHL arenas

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

What are you smoking? IMO the shelf life on any post 1995 building is closer to 50-60 years and if they were built big enough (Canadian tire centre,honda centre,united centre) You can reconfigure them to today's standards and tomorrow's. You think bell centre and the ACC will be up for discussion in 8ish years? HA!

Rogers place will be around for 100+ years I can almost guarantee it. If rexall lasted 40+ as a limited concrete circle (and aged quite well considering). Than this spacious well thought out steel structure can be reconfigured over and over again to keep up with the ages. As can most of today's NHL arenas

Considering that most of the 70s arenas have been replaced, 80s arena replacement is well under way and we're now moving on to the replacing the 90s arenas (hello Canadian Tire Centre), I'm not sure that I'd believe that.

Although that said, Bell Centre and ACC will likely last longer because strangely, privately-financed arenas always seem to last longer than the government subsidized ones... must be a highly coincidental set of engineering issues

[rotten42]

[QUOTE=Oilkountry;7923810]What are you smoking? IMO the shelf life on any post 1995 building is closer to 50-60 years and if they were built big enough (Canadian tire centre,honda centre,united centre) You can reconfigure them to today's standards and tomorrow's. You think bell centre and the rogers arena will be up for discussion in 8ish years? HA!

Rogers place will be around for 100+ years I can almost guarantee it. If rexall lasted 40+ as a limited concrete circle (and aged quite well considering). Than this spacious well thought out steel structure can be reconfigured over and ov

The physicality of a building lasting that long? sure

The practicality?....not a chance.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

What are you smoking? IMO the shelf life on any post 1995 building is closer to 50-60 years and if they were built big enough (Canadian tire centre,honda centre,united centre) You can reconfigure them to today's standards and tomorrow's. You think bell centre and the rogers arena will be up for discussion in 8ish years? HA!

Rogers place will be around for 100+ years I can almost guarantee it. If rexall lasted 40+ as a limited concrete circle (and aged quite well considering). Than this spacious well thought out steel structure can be reconfigured over and over again to keep up with the ages. As can most of today's NHL arenas

Canadian Tire Centre is a bad example - I doubt it will be used professionally beyond 2025. I think that the location of the rink will have a lot to do with lifespan. Suburban rinks will suffer moreso than ones downtown.

As for 100 years at Rogers Place, I think that might be a trifle optimistic. 50, certainly, but only the most legendary spaces have lifespans approaching 100 years (Fenway Park, Wrigley Field).

Then again, how much more 'premium' can the whole experience get? Really, aside from the luxury boxes, what has changed for attending a sporting event in the past 100 years? Is the experience much different than sitting at Maple Leaf Gardens in the 1940s?

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Jaws

The City borrowed the money, but that hardly constitutes "back room and shady."

I never said it did but in the end the city of Edmonton has taken the largest financial risk as opposed to the Oilers ownership. What was the exact small amount of cash that the Oilers laid out? Is it realistic to say that the city of Edmonton had to come up with 90%% of the $616 million?

[esquire]

@ wave46

You ask that question as if there weren't already a bunch of 1970s and 1980s arenas, replete with skyboxes and other forms of premium seating, demolished to make way for newer, glitzier arenas. Who knows where it will all end, but it's safe to say we're not at the terminal point yet.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by speedog

I never said it did but in the end the city of Edmonton has taken the largest financial risk as opposed to the Oilers ownership. What was the exact small amount of cash that the Oilers laid out? Is it realistic to say that the city of Edmonton had to come up with 90%% of the $616 million?

Here's all the numbers.

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

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

@ wave46

You ask that question as if there weren't already a bunch of 1970s and 1980s arenas, replete with skyboxes and other forms of premium seating, demolished to make way for newer, glitzier arenas. Who knows where it will all end, but it's safe to say we're not at the terminal point yet.

I guess maybe I'm trying to apply logic here mistakenly. I'm just wondering if there's a point where the madness stops - the increases in the cost of attending and running pro sports has eclipsed inflation for years. There has to be a point that people give up.

There are some reasons why I could see the '70s and '80s stadiums/arenas being replaced, especially those in the suburbs. The suburbs stink for anything that isn't the NFL.

I do take your point about privately built arenas though - it is amazing how the Montreal Forum worked for 70 years as a venue and I imagine that arenas like the Bell Centre and ACC will have close to the same lifespan. However now the Saddledome - despite being built in my lifetime - is inadequate (so they say).

Interesting aside: The ACC - located on premium land in downtown Toronto - cost $265m in 1999. (Inflation adjusted to 2016: $366m). How come the Saddledome replacement is so much more expensive? (quoted @ ~$550m)

[osmo]

Originally Posted by wave46

I guess maybe I'm trying to apply logic here mistakenly. I'm just wondering if there's a point where the madness stops - the increases in the cost of attending and running pro sports has eclipsed inflation for years. There has to be a point that people give up.

There are some reasons why I could see the '70s and '80s stadiums/arenas being replaced, especially those in the suburbs. The suburbs stink for anything that isn't the NFL.

I do take your point about privately built arenas though - it is amazing how the Montreal Forum worked for 70 years as a venue and I imagine that arenas like the Bell Centre and ACC will have close to the same lifespan. However now the Saddledome - despite being built in my lifetime - is inadequate (so they say).

Interesting aside: The ACC - located on premium land in downtown Toronto - cost $265m in 1999. (Inflation adjusted to 2016: $366m). How come the Saddledome replacement is so much more expensive? (quoted @ ~$550m)

ACC site isn't that big of a site and half of the project was a renovation using much of the old Post Office shell within the arena structure. ACC costs blew up when they had to shift the project to dig down much further to fit in the hockey rink.

In saying all that, the ACC is showing its age. That era of Mid 90s arenas will all be up for major renovations or replacements. In Atlanta, they are going to renovate Phillips Arena which about the same age as the ACC.

Many of these 90s arenas are going to be getting $100-300 million dollar renovations coming up soon.

I don't think these new areas will last 100 years like they used to. It will get to a point where the land under the arena is worth more than the building and they will blow it up and rebuild it some place else. Only in older and large cities will they have to stay put as land availability is tight. Skydome, for example, will never go away, there is no other place to build 'Skydome 2' in Toronto so it will forever stay put there until they blow it up to use the land. TD Garden in Boston, MSG, all these will never go away as you won't find land to rebuild them in those cities.

The next trend with the major renovations to arenas will be to downsize. The focus will be on more premium seats with less capacity will be the shift for the next cycle IMO.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by wave46

I guess maybe I'm trying to apply logic here mistakenly. I'm just wondering if there's a point where the madness stops - the increases in the cost of attending and running pro sports has eclipsed inflation for years. There has to be a point that people give up.

There are some reasons why I could see the '70s and '80s stadiums/arenas being replaced, especially those in the suburbs. The suburbs stink for anything that isn't the NFL.

I do take your point about privately built arenas though - it is amazing how the Montreal Forum worked for 70 years as a venue and I imagine that arenas like the Bell Centre and ACC will have close to the same lifespan. However now the Saddledome - despite being built in my lifetime - is inadequate (so they say).

Interesting aside: The ACC - located on premium land in downtown Toronto - cost $265m in 1999. (Inflation adjusted to 2016: $366m). How come the Saddledome replacement is so much more expensive? (quoted @ ~$550m)

For one, construction inflation has been a lot higher than the figure you're using and there are a lot of new bells and whistles needed that didn't exist in 1999. The cost to build the ACC now would be way more than $366 million.