Scott Radley: Arena debate can’t become another stadium or LRT fight
https://www.thespec.com/opinion-stor...-or-lrt-fight/

Perhaps it's overly pessimistic to worry that the looming debate around the location of a centrepiece arena in Hamilton could end up looking a lot like the divisive battles over Tim Hortons Field and the LRT.

But we wonder.

Big Project No. 3 shows up on the agenda on Wednesday morning. That's when the future of FirstOntario Centre or a new arena will land on council's lap. The independent report it will receive was one commissioned to look at the options for a downtown facility, among other entertainment venues.

But there's a twist. At the same meeting, a proposal from Hamilton Bulldogs' owner Michael Andlauer and Cadillac Fairview will arrive for an arena at Lime Ridge Mall.

Yet before this second option even lands, Ward 4 Coun. Sam Merulla says no consideration will be given to any arena idea outside the downtown core. That idea's already been dismissed. You can be sure others around the table will share that position.

On the flip side, Ward 7 Coun. Esther Pauls says any good idea needs to be considered even if it's not downtown. Coun. Terry Whitehead says he'll be seconding her motion to that end and others have said they're willing to consider it.

Looks like the battle stations are already being manned.

The 130-page Ernst and Young report that recommends a 10,000-seat arena somewhere in the downtown cites a number of ways such a building would ultimately save the city money over merely maintaining FirstOntario Centre. There would be the spinoff benefits to nearby businesses, a 50-cent facility fee on tickets that would go to the city, a new lease deal with the Bulldogs that would put more money in the city's coffers, and some other impacts.

A big part of all this comes from a greater number of people attending events at a new place, predicted to be 50 per cent more for sports and 15 per cent more for concerts and other shows. This means more tickets sold, more people eating in the area, more parking and more food and beverage revenue in the building.

I'm really skeptical of these increase in numbers for a new stadium. You're losing the ability to host really big shows, plus 50% more for the OHL seems like a reach. Plus whatever number they come up with to build a new stadium, I'm skeptical it can be built for that.

These people are lunatics ..... How can you even consider moving such a huge venue from the core ?!?! And why is the argument that the stadium is too big ...yet still argue that the numbers will increase with a smaller venue ????? I in the twilight zone ?!??

Ignoring location, what is this small arena going to offer than FOC currently doesn't?

And limeridge mall should be focusing on becoming a better mall ....better stores ...better restaurants etc .... Not having a large arena in its parking lot that sits empty until used

Modernized equipment, a better viewing experience for fans of the Honey Badgers or Bulldogs, among other aspects. Not only is Copps built for a team and a league that isn't coming, it was built in a different era. Hockey rinks (and indeed, sports facilities in general) are much different now.

Alright, but it seems like quite amount of money and effort just to get a better viewing experience for tenants that don't draw many fans. Sure, maybe the new arena will help attendance at first - but I really don't see these teams garnering that much support in the long term. Hamilton is essentially a major league sports market simply based on it's proximity to all the major NA sports leagues. It never has and never will generate much interest in these smaller leagues. I can honestly see this new arena being built, the OHL team still not getting enough long term support - and then the team relocating.

It's actually saving a lot of money, over $20M. FOC is going to need over $60M in deferred maintenance, not even improvements over the next 5 years. Essentially lipstick on a pig, bandaid fixes to the roof, HVAC, washrooms, elevators, ice making equipement, etc.

The new arena, all maintenance would be responsibility of the operator, with the city only contributing say 50% or less to the capital cost up front.

Didn't that report that just came out say that there were only something like 4 events all year at FOC that required upper bowl seating to be used? The place is simply too big for most events going on there now. The roof also doesn't support many of the new shows going around (this is the same issue Calgary has). Not sure what people are thinking is going to skip on by if they don't have those extra 7,000 seats. Like I said in another thread on this topic, it's the mindset of not having that major league size (if not quality) arena that is going to be the fight. Having Copps makes people think Hamilton is a big league city and they don't want to lose that, even though they aren't really gaining any benefit from having the place either.

Yea, FOC didn't have a lot of events that required the use of the upper bowl - but isn't that something the operators of the arena are trying to change? Hamilton should be hosting more larger concerts/events and drawing more people into the city. Getting rid of FOC just makes the city look minor league in this respect.

Personally, I prefer concerts in a small venue with max capacity of like 2,000 or so and my days of attending in a large venue are long gone - but I know I'm in the minority.

I was at that council meeting, I can tell you with confidence that having a 10,000 seat arena will not block us off from major concert oppertunities.

As for looking 'minor league', Victoria's hockey arena, for example, isn't small-looking at all, and their capacity is only 7000.

Disney on Ice had 4 events alone.... Monster Truck Madness 3.

It'll be a major step backwards to lose Copps and a black mark on Hamilton's history.

City council poised to explore ‘next steps’ on downtown arena plan
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew van Dongen, Sept 5 2019)

The city appears poised to explore private-sector interest in partnering on a potential $130-million new arena and entertainment facility somewhere in the downtown.

But that won't stop Coun. Esther Pauls (Ward 7) from pitching a separate evaluation next week of a Lime Ridge arena plan from the owners of the Mountain mall and the Hamilton Bulldogs.

Councillors spent hours behind closed doors discussing aspects of a consultant recommendation to investigate private-sector interest in helping build a new 10,000-seat sports arena paired with "high-density" development somewhere in the core. Prospective core locations were also kept secret.

But Mayor Fred Eisenberger emerged from the meeting early and expressed confidence councillors are willing to take "the next steps" to test the viability of a public-private partnership.

Ernst and Young consultant Zack Pendley earlier argued the $130-million plan would give the city the best bang for economic buck and even permanently end the need for annual taxpayer subsidies.

City staff have suggested such a multi-sport facility could also benefit from federal or provincial grants if Hamilton opts to pursue a 2030 Commonwealth Games bid.

The catch?

Pendley said he "can't emphasize enough the importance of an anchor tenant" to the financial sustainability of a new arena.

But the current arena tenant, the Hamilton Bulldogs OHL hockey team, have pitched a separate and smaller arena at Lime Ridge Mall on Upper Wentworth Street.

Mall and team officials attended Wednesday's meeting to watch part of the debate, but they did not comment publicly before the end of a hours-long private session.

Team owner Michael Andlauer, who is in the last year of a two-year lease, has previously indicated he is willing to work with the city on a viable downtown option if it can happen soon.

Pendley told councillors Wednesday a private-public facility could be operating within four or five years.

Andlauer did not respond to questions Wednesday about whether that timeline could work for him or whether the city's decision would affect any ongoing lease negotiations at FirstOntario Centre.

Read it in full here.


Thoughts:

The City is looking at spending $85 million toward a $130 million 10,000-seat facility whose prime tenant draws less than half that and operates on two-year lease increments.

Closing FOC is projected to save as much as $26.3 million in expenses over the next 30 years. So spending that $85 million will potentially help the city avoid $26.3 million in costs by 2049. Of course, a new facility would possibly need additional upgrades during that time — FOC itself is 34 now — so it's hard to know how much of that "as much as" estimate the City can actually claim as a savings.

The Commonwealth Games is being floated as a way of defraying the cost to the City, which would be true if there wasn't a push from said tenant to have this new facility completed yesterday.

"We can't wait five years," Andlauer said a year and a half ago. "People are going to lose interest."

He may not have much choice. The City's consultant on this project, Ernst & Young, projects that a private-public facility could be operating within four or five years. Pushing that timeline forward will presumably increase the total cost, most of which will be borne by the municipality (the current formulation assumes 2/3 of capital costs will be absorbed by the City.). A projected 2024-2025 arena occupancy would see the Bulldogs sign and run out two more facility leases at FOC before the lights go on at the new arena.

The Commonwealth Games hypothetical, which would allow the City to tap money from senior government, requires additional patience. They aren't even planning to award the 2026 CG until next year, and for the City to successfully enlist senior government for cost-sharing would likely require them to wait until after the 2030 CG have been awarded to break ground. So let's say four or five years before the City will even know if they'd have the 2030 CG card to play.

For comparison, Hamilton voted to come aboard the 2015 Pan Am Games in the spring of 2008, the games were awarded in November 2009, the $146 million stadium broke ground three years after that, and opened around two years after that. Assuming that council can agree on and hold to a facility location , they can maybe shave three years off that timeline, but even so, that's another two years from groundbreaking to occupancy.

So depending on how optimistic you are, this will either cost the City $85 million and be open in 2024 or cost the city far less and achieve occupancy in 2027. (Andlauer has previously pledged to match the City's share dollar-for-dollar, so there may be a rosier interpretation, if you assume that he's not counted in the projected $45 million of private funding.)

Cost, of course, is relative. The silver-bullet scenario, hosting the 2030 Commonwealth Games , is thought to carry a hosting cost to the City $300 million or more (by way of an example, the 2022 games are projected to cost Birmingham £184m — $300m CAD even after accounting for the value-engineering of that event and a Brexit-panicked pound).

13 of 98 events required the upper bowl in 2018.

Monster Truck used the upper bowl because half of the lower bowl was cascaded inwards to allow for enough space for Monster truck floor plate. The avg attendance for Monster Truck in 2018 was 10,881.

Also Disney/Marvel on Ice had 16 shows at Copps in 2018 with an average attendance of 4,897, clearly not needing more than 10,000 seats.

Disney on Ice will for sure still come around if we have a 10,000 seat arena.

*All stats from the EY consulting report.

Ever notice how consultant reports always favour tearing down and building new buildings?

What is actually wrong with First Ontario Centre? Why can't it be fixed? I know the biggest issue for the Bulldogs is the aging coolant lines which may fail. So fix them. That would be cheaper than building a new arena.

These reports ignore the environmental consequences of demolishing a building. It is always better environmentally to save and retrofit an old building than to demolish it and build a new one. If they used the 'triple bottom line' approach that the City uses for its own staff reports, I think they would favour retrofitting more often.

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.

From two years ago a consultant report pegged renovating only the lower bowl at $68m with a full arena reno at $250m.

They are proposing to keep Copps, however change it to a convention centre. Which I'm totally in favour of (as long as the new arena stays downtown).

I imagine between the upper and lower bowl they would be split as two floors of convention space.

They're not keeping Copps. It's going to be demolished.

Yeah, I can't imagine renovating would be cheaper or more practical than demolishing and building new. You'd have to completely gut the building down to the shell and remove the upper seating bowl. I don't even know if you can remove the lower bowl and leave the walls standing or is it an integral part of the building structure.

I agree with this. The odds of them being able to build a new arena with that cost estimate is basically zero.

The new Moncton arena, 8800 seats, was built for a bit over $100million.