Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MacLac

Huh?! I was referring to the QC arena.....as an Albertan taxpayer subsidizing their way of life - this includes their new shiny tenantless arena.....

Alberta taxpayers paid for the Quebec City arena?

OK, so you're one of those ...

[Coldrsx]

^haha

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Alberta taxpayers paid for the Quebec City arena?

OK, so you're one of those ...

Lousy entitled Kwee-beckers!!!!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

Lousy entitled Kwee-beckers!!!!

If I email him via e-Interac the nickel he contributed as an Albertan to the Quebec City arena, will he STFU and let us discuss in peace among adults?

(This offer is valid for a few other posters as well, BTW.)

[elly63]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

Meanwhile in Calgary... pretty much a story about nothing.

No, that was a good prompting kick in the arse. A few more of those and we might see some action. Thanks for posting it.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

I don't think you understand how a CRL works. Let me help you mmmkay

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/projects_redevelopment/community-revitalization-levy.aspx

A risk, a calculated one, they were exceptionally conservative on their expectations and are going to surpass them by a considerable margin.

As discussed 1293012 times before, development occurred pre-arena and will occur post-arena, but the commitment to the arena and Ice District accelerated many other projects and will shift where and how development occurs in this city.

Being first is a great ambition.

I know exactly how they work. I ran a study on examples of these schemes in Ohio. It is a massive development subisdy that gambles that it can bring enough money to service the debt. Many cities will mask the true charges in other budget areas such as the water and other capital improvements hiden in that tally to hide the costs that are beign directly tied to the TIF area. Then when and if revenues come in short of projection the city is left with not many options in attempting to shore up the shortfalls for its debt commitments.

Now I don't expect Edmonton to be like Cincinatti that had a 35 million budget hole that surprse surpriuse was the same size as thier debt obligations the stadium/arena debt, in thier case they had ot shut down schools and slash budgets to make thier payemnts but it just shows how its all a folly in the end.

Where in Canada do you see the massive ammounts of "development" tied directly to a Arena being placed there. Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal all ahve seen modest activity. In Toronto Southcore and all the other projects had more to do with the prosximity to Union Station and not the ACC. You could argue that Edmonton could achive the same growth projections by simply upgrading the LRT and offering the same service and capital impromvements, all would of been much cheaper then the extra $500 million needed for the arena.

This things don't work. I don't have time to dig agian into Edmontons nubmers but it is all funny math when you dig into the boring PDFs and not the simplified fact sheets for the public. Even for Katz commitment ot rent is a joke, he is only expcted to handover $7 million in cash, it does not state what the rest of the cash is going to come from. Maybe this comes from bogus revenue share agreements I dont know but it is far short then the $36 million in lease revenues they said they are going to "generate" from Katz.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If I email him via e-Interac the nickel he contributed as an Albertan to the Quebec City arena, will he STFU and let us discuss in peace among adults?

(This offer is valid for a few other posters as well, BTW.)

Don't bother he's really confused anyway
Oil royalties pay for Quebec's "way of life" (whatever that means) not tax dollars

If taxes funded a revenue sharing program between the provinces I think Quebec and Ontario would see the short end of that stick considering together they hold like 60% of the countries population. Alberta would be laughing

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Originally Posted by osmo

I know exactly how they work. I ran a study on examples of these schemes in Ohio. It is a massive development subsidy that gambles that it can bring enough money to service the debt. Many cities will mask the true charges in other budget areas such as the water and other capital improvements hidden in that tally to hide the costs that are being directly tied to the TIF area. Then when and if revenues come in short of projection, the city is left with not many options in attempting to shore up the shortfalls for its debt commitments.

Now I don't expect Edmonton to be like Cincinatti that had a 35 million budget hole that surprise surprise was the same size as their debt obligations the stadium/arena debt, in their case they had to shut down schools and slash budgets to make their payments but it just shows how it's all a folly in the end.

Where in Canada do you see the massive amounts of "development" tied directly to a Arena being placed there? Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal all have seen modest activity. In Toronto, Southcore and all the other projects had more to do with the proximity to Union Station and not the ACC. You could argue that Edmonton could achieve the same growth projections by simply upgrading the LRT and offering the same service and capital improvements, all would of been much cheaper then the extra $500 million needed for the arena.

This things don't work. I don't have time to dig again into Edmonton's numbers but it is all funny math when you dig into the boring PDFs and not the simplified fact sheets for the public. Even for Katz commitment ot rent is a joke, he is only expected to handover $7 million in cash, it does not state what the rest of the cash is going to come from. Maybe this comes from bogus revenue share agreements I don't know but it is far short then the $36 million in lease revenues they said they are going to "generate" from Katz.

Where in Canada do you see the massive amounts of "development" tied directly to a Arena being placed there? Interesting question...only in Edmonton it seems.

One thing that you choose to ignore is that unlike other North American cities where an arena gets built and secondary development happens slowly over years and maybe not at all, in Edmonton, the surrounding development is all Katz/WAM. I am not sure that anyone can suggest that this is not a very big success story given that we are seeing a 27 story office, 68 story office/condo and a 55 story hotel/condo and then a 50+ residental tower going up all at the same time next door to...the arena!

[Coldrsx]

Thanks DaveO

[Black Star]

^^ Bingo Bango.......

[craner]

... Bongo & Irving.

The "Mosquitos"

[Riise]

Originally Posted by DAVEinEDMONTON

Where in Canada do you see the massive amounts of "development" tied directly to a Arena being placed there? Interesting question...only in Edmonton it seems.

One thing that you choose to ignore is that unlike other North American cities where an arena gets built and secondary development happens slowly over years and maybe not at all, in Edmonton, the surrounding development is all Katz/WAM. I am not sure that anyone can suggest that this is not a very big success story given that we are seeing a 27 story office, 68 story office/condo and a 55 story hotel/condo and then a 50+ residental tower going up all at the same time next door to...the arena!

An Enterprise Zone is a tool used in England that is similar to a CRL/TIFF. One of the complaints about Enterprise Zones is that they don't generate new development but simply concentrate development in single areas. Can one argue that the ICE District is funnelling development that would have been spread around Central Edmonton in one location? If this is the case, it also leads to design questions like the benefits of diversified mingle-age construction versus monotonous single-age construction.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Originally Posted by Riise

An Enterprise Zone is a tool used in England that is similar to a CRL/TIFF. One of the complaints about Enterprise Zones is that they don't generate new development but simply concentrate development in single areas. Can one argue that the ICE District is funnelling development that would have been spread around Central Edmonton in one location? If this is the case, it also leads to design questions like the benefits of diversified mingle-age construction versus monotonous single-age construction.

No complaints here. I would think in Edmonton, building a central core of taller towers would be preferred so that it connects to the already existing CBD and provides a more concentrated central core. And the location could not be better in my opinion. And I am not sure I get your point about diversified versus monotonous design. Seems to me the designs of the 5 proposed buildings are fine and very diversified given that they are, for the most part, all different. I guess if they decided to build a complex like Bow Valley Square or Sun Life Plaza with multiple similar monotonous mirror buildings your point would be more on target but that simply is not the case here.

[Oilkountry]

Buddy at HF boards put these up. Sorry they are so small

[Riise]

Originally Posted by DAVEinEDMONTON

And I am not sure I get your point about diversified versus monotonous design. Seems to me the designs of the 5 proposed buildings are fine and very diversified given that they are, for the most part, all different. I guess if they decided to build a complex like Bow Valley Square or Sun Life Plaza with multiple similar monotonous mirror buildings your point would be more on target but that simply is not the case here.

When you construct all of the buildings in an area in a short timeframe, it will lack the diversity of styles from different times and uses that will not be able to afford the rent in new-build construction. It is one of my fears for East Village in Calgary as most master planned neighbourhoods struggle to overcome sterility and sameness.

[Coldrsx]

^but Calgary and Edmonton want our Yaletown, our City place

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^but Calgary and Edmonton want our Yaletown, our City place

The saving grace for Yaletown is that it had a large concentration of historic buildings to build a neighbourhood around, otherwise it would be no better than the Coal Harbour dead zone. Having blocks of generic towers with generic retail doesn't work for creating interesting walkable neighbourhoods. City Place is the poster child for that kind of failure.

[blueandgoldguy]

Did Katz require city workers to move into one of those new office buildings as part of the agreement?

I remember travelling to Montreal in 2004 and I took a stroll around the Bell Centre. Across from the arena on the south side there was an abondoned building with shattered windows...and this was 8 years after the arena had opened. This in a city of 4 million people with one of the busiest arenas in North America.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Did Katz require city workers to move into one of those new office buildings as part of the agreement?

I remember travelling to Montreal in 2004 and I took a stroll around the Bell Centre. Across from the arena on the south side there was an abandoned building with shattered windows...and this was 8 years after the arena had opened. This in a city of 4 million people with one of the busiest arenas in North America.

No. The city taking space was not part of any initial arena deal. Katz was one of many potential developers who offered space for City expansion and consolidation. He just won the bidding process.

And I am sure that things have changed in Montreal around their arena since 2004. Posts in this thread seem to suggest that things are moving along nicely in Montreal as well.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Did Katz require city workers to move into one of those new office buildings as part of the agreement?

I remember travelling to Montreal in 2004 and I took a stroll around the Bell Centre. Across from the arena on the south side there was an abondoned building with shattered windows...and this was 8 years after the arena had opened. This in a city of 4 million people with one of the busiest arenas in North America.

A RFPs went out, 16 or so proposals came in.

Apples meet oranges.