New Downtown Calgary Arena

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Doug

Calgary will just borrow the money. It is already headed down the path to 1970's style Montreal fiscal oblivion.

If you don't like the city, leave.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/523493/...style-arena-deal-in-calgary-says-nenshi/

“I’m open to conversation but I don’t believe in public money subsidizing private profit in general,” Mayor Naheed Nenshi tweeted in response to a question about how the Edmonton arena deal would affect Calgary.

The mayor added, “it will be hard to convince me it’s a good use of public money.”

[artvandelay]

I bet the province kicks in some cash for the new Edmonton arena at some point, considering Katz financed the PCs election campaign.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I bet the province kicks in some cash for the new Edmonton arena at some point, considering Katz financed the PCs election campaign.

The province has already given cities money to do with mostly as they please (MSI). I still don't understand why they would give an additional amount for arenas.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^elaborate please.

The City of Calgary is very near its borrowing limits already, and barring some large change in policy likely can't borrow much more. And, with the limited amount of room left in the cap, there are many other projects that the current mayor and council consider to be a much higher priority than a new NHL arena in Calgary, so that is why it is not very likely.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

The City of Calgary is very near its borrowing limits already, and barring some large change in policy likely can't borrow much more. And, with the limited amount of room left in the cap, there are many other projects that the current mayor and council consider to be a much higher priority than a new NHL arena in Calgary, so that is why it is not very likely.

The vast, vast majority of the City's debt is related to short term WLRT borrowing because Provincial money from MSI has flowed slower than originally proposed as well as (and in particular) water/sewer infrastructure.

Previously, the City did not (foolishly) include water/sewer infrastructure in the development levy. A couple mega projects (that went over budget) later and we landed ourselves in massive debt. This Council has put a plan in place to pay this debt off - which unfortunately has to come on the backs of the rate-payers.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/06/29/water-fee-hike-a-long-time-coming

As the Mayor said “it is time to atone for the sins of the past.”

In the next two years, we get very close to our debt-ceiling, then it starts to drop off sharply after that as a result of the water/sewer repayment strategy and completion of WLRT payment. City's in fine financial shape.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Wooster

The vast, vast majority of the City's debt is related to short term WLRT borrowing because Provincial money from MSI has flowed slower than originally proposed as well as (and in particular) water/sewer infrastructure.

Previously, the City did not (foolishly) include water/sewer infrastructure in the development levy. A couple mega projects (that went over budget) later and we landed ourselves in massive debt. This Council has put a plan in place to pay this debt off - which unfortunately has to come on the backs of the rate-payers.
.

Good to know that a good chunk of the $3 billion in debt is related to short term WLRT and will be cleared soon.

As to the bolded part, I don't know if it was foolish. The original agreement with UDI was to drop the water and sewer levy in favour of a higher transportation levy. Water and sewer were dropped because everyone agreed it could be funded through rate payers like every other utility (where as Transportation had no such revenue option). The agreement gets into place and we start collecting higher transportation levies. UEP puts together their proposed rates that are now needed to fund all the infrastructure and council (foolishly) decided they couldn't put those rates to their voters, and didn't implement what was necessary. And like you said, a couple of mega projects later....

[frinkprof]

For what it's worth, on Hockey Night in Canada tonight it was mentioned by Ron MacLean that the Flames plan to announce new arena plans in 3-4 months.

[Calgarian]

Yeah I heard that too, very exciting news!

[craner]

^ Exciting indeed.
I really hope the Flames intend to do something with McMahon as well now that they own the Stamps.

[ZeDgE]

Demolish it and start over hopefully, anything else is lipstick on a pig.

[KONYS]

For those interested, there is a fairly lively discussion about the new arena/debate over the merits of stampitecture ongoing over at Calgary Puck. It looks like the Flames are considering lands on the West End of downtown or just north of the Stampede lands (as previously mentioned in this thread).

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by KONYS

For those interested, there is a fairly lively discussion about the new arena/debate over the merits of stampitecture ongoing over at Calgary Puck. It looks like the Flames are considering lands on the West End of downtown or just north of the Stampede lands (as previously mentioned in this thread).

If it is the west end of downtown, it might be part of a larger master plan including the convention centre proposal that is currently being worked out. This might be a smart move, as not only would it consolidate the arena in an area that would need to become a hospitality / service hub, it could also open up discussions about revenue streams, as a convention centre may command a broader appetite, and allow for some efficiencies.

While I'm not wanting major tax subsidies, am interested in how the broader proposal will look, and what the potential views from the WLRT will be

[DizzyEdge]

Imagine a convention centre/arena where the bus depot is, with an enclosed skywalk crossing 9th ave into Sunalta station.

People complain about putting such a structure in the middle of nowhere, where there's no other amenities, but a redeveloping 10th ave could provide amenities

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Imagine a convention centre/arena where the bus depot is, with an enclosed skywalk crossing 9th ave into Sunalta station.

People complain about putting such a structure in the middle of nowhere, where there's no other amenities, but a redeveloping 10th ave could provide amenities

I've heard a rumour of exactly this. The Flames will have a hard time getting funding for a new arena from any level of government (at least in the near future), but they might be able to get help with a concept that kick started the west village. By help, I don't necessarily mean money directly for the stadium, but I think the city would seriously consider pitching in for redeveloping the area as well as cut them every break possible. I'm still sceptical...

[fusili]

I am skeptical that the West Village area is any more than 15 years away. There is still a massive amount of land to be redeveloped in the East Village, let alone the Beltline. The East Village is struggling already because of competition from the Beltline in terms of the condo market. Such comprehensive redevelopment plans make sense when the City is running out of room for this type of development, and more land needs to be made available. There is currently no shortage of places for condo towers, and I can list about 50 more sites in the Beltline alone where we could put towers .

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

I am skeptical that the West Village area is any more than 15 years away. There is still a massive amount of land to be redeveloped in the East Village, let alone the Beltline. The East Village is struggling already because of competition from the Beltline in terms of the condo market. Such comprehensive redevelopment plans make sense when the City is running out of room for this type of development, and more land needs to be made available. There is currently no shortage of places for condo towers, and I can list about 50 more sites in the Beltline alone where we could put towers .

The East Village proper does not have appropriate spaces for a combo convention centre / arena project, and nor are the available spots connected well to an existing LRT station. The only option there was over the tracks for the convention centre, but even then, an arena on the bus-depot location, as an example, would be quite out of the way.

There is no reason West Village should not be considered, perhaps also in conjunction with road realignments and re-work of the pretzel road configuration at crowchild / bow trail and memorial. The more things you can do in one comprehensive plan, the better the outcome.

[MalcolmTucker]

West Village would be rejected out of mobility concerns IMO. Not enough parking or LRT capacity considering there isn't enough parking. For all its faults the Stampede is a pretty good spot for the arena.

[artvandelay]

I still think the Big Four site is the perfect spot for a new arena. Right next to the CTrain; a new building could easily include a buried Vic park station. Very close to bars and restaurants on 17th and plenty of parking at the Stampede. Unfortunately the recent indications are that the Stampede grounds are no longer in consideration.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

West Village would be rejected out of mobility concerns IMO. Not enough parking or LRT capacity considering there isn't enough parking. For all its faults the Stampede is a pretty good spot for the arena.

That's why Big Four is the ideal site. Stampede Park by its nature has a lot of parking. The building could tie directly into the LRT station as well. From a redevelopment standpoint it could be a catalyst for the revitalization of the East end of 17th Avenue and area.

[Bigtime]

I was under the impression the Stampede nixed the Big 4 site because of contractual obligations of space for the bi-yearly Petroleum show.

I still think it would be the best location, just the ability to have an LRT station right in the building is the biggest reason in my mind.