Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3 - Page 12

Mikemike · #1 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 3:36 PM**

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 · #2 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 3:38 PM**

^ 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.

Coldrsx · #3 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 4:16 PM**

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.

WhipperSnapper · #4 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I have said nothing that doesn't support the hype around this project. Will it last and will it generate new interest over a longer term that will keep development going not just for the ICE District but for the benefit of all of downtown.

Calgarian · #5 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 5:32 PM**

Can't really see any use for Northlands, Edmonton doesn't need 2 NHL sized arenas. What would Edmontonians like to see in that location once the arena is gone?

Calgarian · #6 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 6:22 PM**

Are they going to keep K days or whatever it's called there?

esquire · #7 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 6:26 PM**

Is it really such a non-starter to keep Northlands Coliseum around? Seems to me that it could be quite a good community asset to have two big rinks, as is the case in Vancouver.

Also, who is making the decisions regarding Northlands? Are they giving up the racetrack voluntarily, or is the City forcing their hand?

GlassCity · #8 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 6:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Is it really such a non-starter to keep Northlands Coliseum around? Seems to me that it could be quite a good community asset to have two big rinks, as is the case in Vancouver.

Also, who is making the decisions regarding Northlands? Are they giving up the racetrack voluntarily, or is the City forcing their hand?

Well in Vancouver our WHL Giants just left the Pacific Coliseum for a 5,000 seat arena in Langley because it got too big for them. Now we just use it for concerts and events really.

I like NHL and WHL teams having separate arenas because I think it strengthens team's identities more, but even if the OilKings play out of Rogers Place you'd think Northlands would be useful for something, maybe even community use. I mean it's already there. But if no one wants to operate it or maintain it then I suppose there's not much you can do. Old stadiums/arenas get demolished all the time.

esquire · #9 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 6:44 PM**

^ I suppose Katz wants Northlands demolished to give him the arena monopoly. I know that when MTS Centre was built, part of the deal was that the old Winnipeg Arena had to be demolished. That effectively shut out any possibility of a competing hockey team, such as a WHL franchise that could have arguably matched the Manitoba Moose in popularity.

tomthumb2 · #10 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 9:29 PM**

Completely ignored in the Calgary arena fiasco are the Stamps (as usual). Was listening to The Fan 960 this morning and completely agree that mcmahon is shittier than the worst US high school stadium and needs to be put out of its misery. Yet not even a peep about doing ANYTHING with it. This used to be a can do city - those days are long gone.

Calgarian · #11 Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 11:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

Completely ignored in the Calgary arena fiasco are the Stamps (as usual). Was listening to The Fan 960 this morning and completely agree that mcmahon is shittier than the worst US high school stadium and needs to be put out of its misery. Yet not even a peep about doing ANYTHING with it. This used to be a can do city - those days are long gone.

Once the arena is figured out, McMahon will be next.

osmo · #12 Posted **Sep 14, 2017, 3:32 AM**

Billionaires asking for public welfare - it's getting old.

Coldrsx · #13 Posted **Sep 14, 2017, 3:37 AM**

Is it?

Collaboration ain't a bad thing until it is. If a fair deal can be struck, do it.

Acajack · #14 Posted **Sep 14, 2017, 1:11 PM**

It's odd to hear even minor rumblings about the Flames potentially relocating. After the big three, I always thought they were the most solid of the "next four" Canadian NHL clubs.

king10 · #15 Posted **Sep 14, 2017, 1:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's odd to hear even minor rumblings about the Flames potentially relocating. After the big three, I always thought they were the most solid of the "next four" Canadian NHL clubs.

If Calgary leaves there will be at least one or two teams willing to relocate there or even a new ownership group applying for expansion.

The current owners are just greedy and trying to leverage wayy too much against the tax payers. They think they can swindle an Edmonton type deal but there's less and less appetite to fund pro arenas for billionaire owners.

JHikka · #16 Posted **Sep 14, 2017, 1:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's odd to hear even minor rumblings about the Flames potentially relocating.

Probably because it's extremely unlikely they relocate. This recent news is merely a negotiating tactic to either strongarm the City or to influence municipal elections. Fans in Calgary should be absolutely cognizant of what this ownership is trying to do to the City.

wave46 · #17 Posted **Sep 14, 2017, 2:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

Probably because it's extremely unlikely they relocate. This recent news is merely a negotiating tactic to either strongarm the City or to influence municipal elections. Fans in Calgary should be absolutely cognizant of what this ownership is trying to do to the City.

I am of the opinion that it is a tactic that plays relatively poorly in Canada. Maybe if Calgary was in some sunshine state it might work, but generally strong-arm techniques don't go over well here.

Yes, the NHL is important here, but this country has let teams go when their markets couldn't support them.

Also, they run the risk of alienating Nenshi more if he is re-elected. If he's offered them a decent deal (three-way split), why would he bother offering anything better post-election since the Flames made a public hissy fit in order to work against him in the election?

esquire · #18 Posted **Sep 14, 2017, 1:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's odd to hear even minor rumblings about the Flames potentially relocating. After the big three, I always thought they were the most solid of the "next four" Canadian NHL clubs.

That's the issue here... the usual small market holding your team hostage thing beggars belief in a city like Calgary which everyone and his dog knows to be an extremely lucrative hockey market.

I mean come on, given that Winnipeg got its team back then I think we all know that if the Flames announced they were leaving, some other franchise would be ready to move to Calgary as soon as they could break their lease.

Acajack · #19 Posted **Sep 14, 2017, 1:50 PM**

I also highly doubt the current Flames team will move out of Calgary, but if it ever did the relocation/expansion game is fraught with uncertainty. I wouldn't be so sure the city would get back in the league in no time at all.

How long was the NFL out of LA for?

MonctonRad · #20 Posted **Sep 14, 2017, 1:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

I also highly doubt the current Flames team will move out of Calgary, but if it ever did the relocation/expansion game is fraught with uncertainty. I wouldn't be so sure the city would get back in the league in no time at all.

How long was the NFL out of LA for?

Or Quebec City for that matter........