Lansdowne 2.0 (Northside Stands/Arena Redevelopment) | U/C

[Richard Eade]

Denley has an interesting take on things in his completely biased opinion piece that puts forth no facts to back up his position.

There are many facets to the arguments, and I’m hoping that I am not as biased in saying that it is the process that led to, in my opinion, a poor outcome that was the problem.

Way back in time, there was a large expanse of property near the middle of the city that the City owned. Seeing a development opportunity a group of business-people put forth an idea that they could make it more productive. They suggested that, instead of costing the City about $4M per year, they could redevelop a small portion of the land and manage the rest so that it would generate positive cash-flow for the City.

Part of that deal, required the City to pay to replace the south stand of the stadium, which was at the end of its useful life. But the income from the small, redevelopment, section would easily offset that cost. The offer looked too good to be ignored, so the City accepted. The City would pay to replace the City-owned south-side stand, and the business consortium would add retail and manage the entire property. It was going to be great, and the City would soon be awash with income from a ‘waterfall’ of money.

So the City paid for replacing the City’s south-side stands and some minor repairs to the rest of the facility on the north-side. The consortium paid for the new retail facilities, which they built on part of the City’s land. Income from the new retail was supposed to help the City offset the money that it had paid for renewing its aging facility.

Alas, several years later, the business-people returned to complain to the City that the retail that they had built on the City-owned land wasn’t making any money. And, because the remaining sports facilities on the north-side, which had only gotten minor fixes previously, were so old, the consortium couldn’t manage the property effectively. The only answer, according to the consortium, was for the City to pay to replace all of the remaining infrastructure. The new facilities would cost a lot, but they were the City’s responsibility. Not to worry, though; to simplify the task, the consortium would tell the City exactly what sports facility to build to so that the consortium could maximize the monetary returns.

And to guarantee that there are enough people around to make the new facilities profitable, the City will also need to allow the consortium to build new high-rise buildings on the City’s property. And, the income from the air-rights for those towers would offset some of the cost of the sports facility cost. This was, the City was led to believe, the only way to recoup any of the money that the City was putting into the sports facility that it was building for the consortium. And it would take a much longer time for pay-back, so the consortium would need to manage the entire site for the next 50 years.

OK, when I read through that, it just sounds like the plot of a ‘C’-grade, silly movie. Let’s look at things a little more realistically:

The Civic Centre was almost 60 years old. The design was ‘interesting’ and managed to cram a lot of utility into a small space – leaving a large portion of the City-owned land open for other purposes. In minimizing the footprint, however, compromises were made. This made the old facility feel dated and cramped. It also lacked modern accessibility features.

I think that there is little argument that if Lansdowne was to continue to be used as a mid-sized, public sports venue, money had to be spent on it. It is unclear as to whether an extensive renovation would have been enough to bring the Civic Centre building up to modern standards. At the very least, the arena would likely have had to be moved north to pull the stands out from under the rooms.

The best option was probably to replace the building – just as the best option years ago for the south-side stands was a full replacement. Replacing the Civic Centre building would probably have cost the City $350M-$550M. This is what the City is paying now.

The difference is that the consortium is dictating what the City is to build so that the consortium can maximize its profit from the City’s expense. I believe that this is the fundamental flaw with what is happening at Lansdowne. A group of business-people came in and are telling the City what to spend the City’s tax dollars on so that those business-people can run a new – built for them – facility for profit for the next 50 years.

It is my contention that the City should have done an evaluation of what sport facilities it needed to provide TO THE CITY. That includes the needs of professional teams that use those venues, but also any needs of members of the public. The City is the entity paying for the facility. It should have been designed for the good of the city, not for the wants of a consortium of business-people.

Then there is the point about getting money back to off-set the cost. There was nothing stopping the City from doing its due diligence and designing a facility that primarily benefitted city residents while still allowing a private group to come in and build towers.