New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Doug]

I'm actually onside with Nenshi for once. If demand for a multi-purpose arena that would attract big name performers is so high, the business case would be strong without subsidies. The City already faces a crippling debt load. The last thing it can afford is corporate welfare. If anything, the City should be asking for a contribution from the arena developer to offset infrastructure costs.

If the City is somehow duped into contributing, it should gain a proportional ownership stake in the facility. Given that billionaires tend to be skilled negotiators, the City will likely get screwed along the lines of Edmonton vs. Katz.

West Village and the inner city in general is the worst place to build an oppressive monstrosity like an arena that will be a dead zone most of the time. Calgary is not like other cities. It doesn't have massive inner city tracts of former industrial land that face uncertain redevelopment prospects (ex. port district in Seattle, rail yards in Denver). The Stampede Grounds are enough of an eyesore. Fire Park or the Crossroads market area would be far better suited.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

The probably with Calgary is that's its full of transient money-sucking mooches who want to pay low taxes and not contribute anything to the social fabric of this city.

They'd likely be lining up to pay a extra $50 for a hockey ticket or $300 for the world class performers that a new facility would attract. It's not like this facility is seeking to attract performances with limited commercial appeal.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Doug

I'm actually onside with Nenshi for once.

Interesting, so you then weren't\aren't in favor of airport tunnel, secondary suites, intensification, paying down our debt (accumulated by precious councils), ending subsidies for subdivision development, funding the central library, funding new rec centers, funding major transit projects like green line, creating RouteAhead, reducing dependency on property taxes, reducing dependency on provincial transfers, modernizing our municipal governance legislation, changing campaign finance rules, zero based reviews for every department, fixing the auditor's office, mandatory gift, meeting and real estate holding disclosure, poverty reduction initiative, cycle tracks, a new pedestrian strategy... not one of those policies?

[McMurph]

The more I read this thread the more I'm inclined to say, screw it. Keep the Saddledome. The whole "lead, follow or get out of the way" idea is ridiculous. What the Flames want to do is going to take up a huge amount of land -- incurring a significant opportunity cost -- and make a number of other owners' sites obsolete. I don't want the city administration to roll over. I want them to make sure that whatever ends up happening is in the best interests of the city.

I'm sure the Flames want a shinier and more profitable building. I'd like a decent beer and a shorter line for a bathroom on those few nights I'm in the dome. Otherwise I want a livable city and a decent team to watch on the TV. Hopefully King and Council can make it work for everybody.

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by Socguy

"The case for the Edmonton and Calgary arenas are nowhere near the same. The project up in Edmonton has tremendous potential to transform and revitalize their downtown. In fact I would rank Rogers place as one of Alberta's most important/transformational civic constructions currently underway. For this reason, the city of Edmonton showed great vision in (finally) getting this thing done."

So a swanky new arena would transform Edmonton's downtown but not Calgary's? Am I missing something or is Calgary's downtown just that awesome.

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

So a swanky new arena would transform Edmonton's downtown but not Calgary's? Am I missing something or is Calgary's downtown just that awesome.

Are you saying that Calgary's downtown needs something to spur development?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by jawagord

I think the city should step up with something, cetainly cash won't fly with taxpayers but I think land loan, tax breaks would. While I'm not a season ticket holder I've watched the stamps and flames for free on TV literally 100's of games plus attending the occasional game at the dome or McMahon. In comparison the city is giving land and spending $250 million in tax dollars on a new library and I haven't been to a city library in 15 years!

Ah but those games you've watched on TV haven't been free. You pay your cable/satellite subscriber, and the network that was broadcasting the games paid the respective league for those rights, money that goes into the coffers of all the teams in essence.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

But the city digging their heels in on the West Village is also alarming to me and I suspect objections might be raised to any area with residential potential. That might include Railtown and Firestone.

If revitalization is a key part of the equation, Firespark goes right back up to #1 in my view. Considered along with all of the max bell lands, there is plenty on the south side of the road for residential.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Interesting, so you then weren't\aren't in favor of airport tunnel, secondary suites, intensification, paying down our debt (accumulated by precious councils), ending subsidies for subdivision development, funding the central library, funding new rec centers, funding major transit projects like green line, creating RouteAhead, reducing dependency on property taxes, reducing dependency on provincial transfers, modernizing our municipal governance legislation, changing campaign finance rules, zero based reviews for every department, fixing the auditor's office, mandatory gift, meeting and real estate holding disclosure, poverty reduction initiative, cycle tracks, a new pedestrian strategy... not one of those policies?

My recollection is that Doug buys birthday billboards for a hobby.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Ah but those games you've watched on TV haven't been free. You pay your cable/satellite subscriber, and the network that was broadcasting the games paid the respective league for those rights, money that goes into the coffers of all the teams in essence.

Yeah - the Rogers deal itself covers most of the Flames' costs I'd think. Just that is in the order of $50M per team per year.

[Jay in Cowtown]

Just fund the fucking thing publicly and get it under construction, as well as a new football stadium too... I'm sick and tired of the dog shit sports venues in this city!

You're more than welcome to take my taxes out of Cochrane for it too... I'd much rather fund that than a lot of the stupid shit my taxes go to now!

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by Jay in Cowtown

Just fund the fucking thing publicly and get it under construction, as well as a new football stadium too... I'm sick and tired of the dog shit sports venues in this city!

You're more than welcome to take my taxes out of Cochrane for it too... I'd much rather fund that than a lot of the stupid shit my taxes go to now!

Apparently you and I are in the minority.

[Doug_Cgy]

I'm mixed. I believe great cities need to have functional concert and sporting venues. Don't get me wrong, I already think Calgary is amazing, but regardless of whether you love or hate the concerts/shows that skip us, we SHOULD be able to see them here. When one of my favorite acts go to Edmonton, I follow. I dine out there, I get a hotel there, I use their cabs, go for drinks, and I'd much rather spend that money in Calgary. I'm not saying tax dollars should fund the build, but I think at the very least the city can & should help with land. The Flames are an incredibly important institution in this city, and being able to go to concerts/shows adds to the cultural scene of a city. Just my opinion...

[Calgarian]

I have no issue with the city providing land as long as that's the only contribution. Though if it's in the West Village it will require remediation and who pays for that?

[Doug_Cgy]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I have no issue with the city providing land as long as that's the only contribution. Though if it's in the West Village it will require remediation and who pays for that?

That's the question. In this case, I think West Village may not be the answer and the City & Flames would need to work on finding a suitable location that wouldn't require remediation. Is that Downtown, or near? I hope so...

[SHOFEAR]

There is a pretty significant contrast between the last couple of pages of comments and the overall feeling of the Edmonton comments a few years ago when ours was at a similar conceptual level.

If this accurately reflects the attitude in Calgary the flames are in serious trouble.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

There is a pretty significant contrast between the last couple of pages of comments and the overall feeling of the Edmonton comments a few years ago when ours was at a similar conceptual level.

If this accurately reflects the attitude in Calgary the flames are in serious trouble.

It is clear that there is less desperation than Edmonton, and that if desperation is required for the team to get a much more favourable position at the cost of the public purse, than yeah, the Flames owners need to work a little harder (to ensure their 1/2 billion dollar capital gain can become larger).

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Doug_Cgy

That's the question. In this case, I think West Village may not be the answer and the City & Flames would need to work on finding a suitable location that wouldn't require remediation. Is that Downtown, or near? I hope so...

Only other spot downtown would be Railtown, but that's private land. Unless they could convince the city to move the bus barn, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

Overall I think West Village is the right location, just need to find a way to revitalize the area and not have the city lose a ton of money. As was mentioned, the CRL needs a large number of residents to pay for the remediation and realignment of Bow Trail, so having a large arena and football stadium complex will eat away at that potential tax base.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

There is a pretty significant contrast between the last couple of pages of comments and the overall feeling of the Edmonton comments a few years ago when ours was at a similar conceptual level.

If this accurately reflects the attitude in Calgary the flames are in serious trouble.

BS. The Flames are a very profitable organization owned by a couple billionaires. They will lose money if they ever leave the city (unless they stay in Canada), so they need to find a way to pay for their own infrastructure the same way Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver did.

David Staples of the Edmonton Journal wrote a pretty good article on the situation here vs the one that unfolded up there. http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/staples-calgary-doesnt-need-to-chase-edmonton-arena-deal

[MalcolmTucker]

Edmonton did a good job of ensuring path dependency for the decision through the council working/advisory/whatever group. There was no 'do nothing' alternative. The renovation alternative was costly enough to potentially be more expensive over the long term. The public accepted as fact that if nothing was done the Oilers would likely move.