New Downtown Calgary Arena - Page 92

O-tacular · #**1821** Posted **Nov 11, 2014, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Well as long as you think it's not unreasonable, I guess it's fine then. Wait. If it's going to happen one way or another, let's do it without public funds.

I'd rather see money spent on affordable housing.

I appreciate the warning though, but I we're better off bracing ourselves than preparing mentally.

Yes, bend over and brace yourselves...

Ramsayfarian · #**1822** Posted **Nov 11, 2014, 2:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yes, bend over and brace yourselves...

Exactly. Who wants to mentally prepare themselves for that?

GoflamesGo · #**1823** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 2:38 AM**

One of my contacts with kind of loose ties to the flames group mentioned that the arena/ stadium plan will be in then west village. He also mentioned that they will really try for a stadium with a retractable roof. They really want to build something that they can grow into in the future. Not sure if that means mls or anything. He said that the sunalta ctrain station was build with large crowds in mind. Not sure if anyone has heard anything similar??

O-tacular · #**1824** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 3:03 PM**

West end is what I've been thinking will happen. Didn't someone recently say it would be in Victoria Park though?

Jimby · #**1825** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

West end is what I've been thinking will happen. Didn't someone recently say it would be in Victoria Park though?

It only matters what Ken King says. What anyone else says is conjecture.

suburbia · #**1826** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

West end is what I've been thinking will happen. Didn't someone recently say it would be in Victoria Park though?

While I still like Firepark, given that the combined campus will also be taking a stab at convention-type business, the west village (assuming all can nicely be packed in there) would be a very good choice.

RedStar · #**1827** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 2:17 PM**

Nenshi plays defence as Flames craft arena pitch

“This is a very ambitious project, and it’s critical it be communicated effectively and not in pieces, and not in response to ad hoc questions,” he told the Herald. “I am chomping at the bit to tell people about these projects. This is a very exciting concept.”

Multiple sources said the Flames have studied city-owned lands around the Greyhound bus station, a district dubbed West Village and pegged for massive redevelopment akin to East Village.

It will almost certainly require “some sort of public-private” arrangement to work, King said.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi has shown potential to pose a major obstacle, according to documents obtained by the Herald. He’s signalled little interest in civic help beyond expediting development permits, turned down earlier bids for co-operation, and his aides have privately shown great frustration with Flames brass.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/nenshi-plays-defence-flames-arena

Bigtime · #**1828** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 2:32 PM**

A very thorough write up by Mr. Markusoff.

I think King and Company are going to have a hard time with the general public if they are indeed trying to get public funding for a new arena. They've hit resistance over the last few years about it already, and with things like oil dropping, cost of living issues, and the general affordability of Calgary being a concern the average Joe is going to say no.

Coldrsx · #**1829** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 3:05 PM**

Would Calgary go after a CRL strategy similar to Edmonton?

MichaelS · #**1830** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 3:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Would Calgary go after a CRL strategy similar to Edmonton?

I'd be surprised if they do. I think the Flames have a hard case stating an arena is needed to revitalize downtown, based on all of the activity that is already occurring without a new arena.

Coldrsx · #**1831** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 3:50 PM**

^not 'downtown', but for a 'west village' idea.

MalcolmTucker · #**1832** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 4:08 PM**

Depends, if the Flames have assembled enough land, the city through non-dollar means could transfer hundreds of millions of land value to the Flames via upzoning. The city could then do a CRL for the public realm components, environmental remediation, upgrade of Sunalta Station if needed, 20th Street Pedestrian Bridge. The CRL might take longer to pay off, might need to dip down into the already upzoned Sunalta, and the density might need to be higher to generate the necessary dollars.

Calgarian · #**1833** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 4:22 PM**

Get corporations to pay for part of it, and the Flames can pay the rest. The city can spend money on upgrades in the area to accommodate the arena, but no money for the actual arena itself.

Calgarian · #**1834** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 4:29 PM**

Would people be more supportive if there was an Olympic bid tied to this? Calgary could get in the mix for the 2026 or 2030 games.

Calgarian · #**1835** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Would Calgary go after a CRL strategy similar to Edmonton?

If they go with the West Village option I think it would be feasible. If they go Railtown, then they probably missed the boat on that one.

YYCguys · #**1836** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 4:50 PM**

No matter where the new arena is sited, roads will have to be upgraded, for those choosing cars over transit. The Bow/Crow/14th mess needs to be addressed regardless, but it doesn't seem to be a high priority for the City right now. If a site in West Village is picked, then the City will be forced to do something about the transportation network there. Will the City still be eligible for grant money that is not for arenas, but is indirectly related to the arena project (ie: road upgrades)?

artvandelay · #**1837** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 4:57 PM**

That is a really good, thorough article - well done Mr. Markusoff (I'm going to assume you lurk here).

Looks like we are going to see a fair bit of posturing from both city council and the Flames before this deal gets done. As an arena/stadium is a cultural asset much the same as an art gallery or performance venue, I don't mind some form of public support be it land assembly or infrastructure upgrades to enable development. I also think the stadium component makes this project much more palatable to the public, as it can't be argued that we are in desperate need of a new stadium while the case for replacing the Saddledome is not as strong.

Also, I think the West Village location is the way to go. Without some type of kick-start, development of that land is not going to happen for ages and it will continue to languish underutilized. Developers will always take the low hanging fruit and there is so much density available in the Beltline, Victoria Park, East Village and the core that I don't think you will see any interest in the West Village for 20 years at least. By building the entertainment complex there the City will be able to bump up the timeline on development and attract more lucrative commercial development to the area rather than just residential.

Riise · #**1838** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 4:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Would Calgary go after a CRL strategy similar to Edmonton?

According to the article:

Quote:

Nenshi’s office has warned against this kind of move.

“If they proposed West Village, they’d be nuts,” policy analyst Josh White wrote to his colleagues in January 2013. “We told them two years ago the challenge with this site … The business case only makes sense if you can fully build it out at very high density. An arena sucks up a huge (piece) of land, leaving a lot less to pay back a CRL (community revitalization levy).”

In another e-mail, White suggested West Village shouldn’t be opened up for at least a decade, lest it “cannibalize market demand” for East Village.

joe498 · #**1839** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 5:00 PM**

This kind of discussion really frustrates me and here is why:

Aside from the city providing ideas on land and providing permits, the city is not responsible for subsidizing private profits.

The city does not own the Flames, the city wouldn't receive any significant return on investment in the form of tv profits, ticket sales & any other private profits. Unless the City had majority ownership of the Flames and received the majority share of the profits, it should have no part in building a new arena.

If a pro sports team owner can't afford to maintain or build a new arena then maybe they shouldn't be the owner. Billionaires don't need subsidization, some individual billionaires have more money than Calgary's entire city budget, not to mention investment firms, private equity, hedge funds, banks and any other billion dollar company of which Alberta has plenty of due to oil.

In summary, unless the Flames owners are prepared to offer the City a significant portion of the profit they should not expect subsidization. Our city is broke as it stands and cannot provide us the basics without having to raise taxes yearly. Our city and our province is booming and we need all the city revenue possible to keep up.

Our city has many future billion dollar projects of which Provincial dollars will be needed. Considering oil is set to go to $60 as per the OPEC summit, don't expect much provincial money.

tomthumb2 · #**1840** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 5:24 PM**

When I first saw the article I was optimistic but by the end I got the feeling that politicians will drag this out forever (as usual). Don't see anything happening for a long time if ever. An upgrade to the Saddledome is useless and McMahon should be blown up. If thats what we have to live with for the next 50 years I don't see myself buying tickets to support either team.