New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Bigtime]

We could have been given the "concept" 2 years ago, for all that waiting I was expecting more on the detail side of things.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

We could have been given the "concept" 2 years ago, for all that waiting I was expecting more on the detail side of things.

By all accounts, plans went back to square one upon acquisition of the Stampeders in late 2012. Identifying a site suitable for both facilities and working out details behind the scenes would've taken a fair amount of time. There's no point in getting into detailed design before building consensus on a location and funding plan.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by nick.flood

A quick set of the facility on the Railtown lands. Tight but not impossible.

As disclosed to me yesterday, the railtown lands currently sit in the East Village CRL. Therefore if Stadium/Arena is built at railtown site, a second CRL is not possible.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Druh's thoughts.....
http://www.calgary.ca/councillors/ward-7/Pages/News/Blog----Is-CalgaryNEXT-a-good-idea.aspx

• Community Revitalization Levies can be high-risk ventures. To mitigate risk, a CRL needs a stable financial anchor. For example, the Bow Tower, the financial anchor for East Village (Rivers District), generates $22 million in property taxes per year. When the CRL expires, the taxes will go to general revenue. Currently the Saddledome does not pay property taxes. Where will the tax revenue come from to pay for the CRL?

This is a good point. What are the chances the WV can generate enough tax revenue to pay off a $240M if half the area is used for a non-taxable stadium? The CRL would probably need hundreds of millions more to complete clean up and service/attract tenants.

[MalcolmTucker]

The district would probably be drawn to include the development area south of the Sunalta LRT station which would help a bit, perhaps a block or two east of 14th Street even.

[Denscafon]

Originally Posted by Cage

As disclosed to me yesterday, the railtown lands currently sit in the East Village CRL. Therefore if Stadium/Arena is built at railtown site, a second CRL is not possible.

If that's true that is very strange as Railtown is not even part of East village. The land in that area is almost the same size as East Village by itself, not including Fort Calgary.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

We could have been given the "concept" 2 years ago, for all that waiting I was expecting more on the detail side of things.

Exactly. Seems like the only thing they worked on was their song and dance. Yesterday on the CBC, they mentioned that a listener told them it reminded him of the mono-rail episode from The Simpsons.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Denscafon

If that's true that is very strange as Railtown is not even part of East village. The land in that area is almost the same size as East Village by itself, not including Fort Calgary.

Neither is the Bow (the office tower would've happened regardless), but they gerrymandered the CRL district to make the financials for EV work.

[Halofire]

I can't see any credible reason to support this proposal. It does very little for the city, at a major cost to it. The flames can stay in the Dome for another 15 years and in that time, the owner's can save up for their own arena/stadium, and pay for the land they put it on.

There's absolutely no chance of the Flames or Stampeders running off to another city for a more favorable venue.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Better for whom?

Well it's better for the owners and the team. They make more money, which can either be used to line pockets or pay players/staff to get a better team which will win more and provide more opportunities to make money.

If the building is full, then it implies it is at least no worse, but is often better for the fans. At least for those willing to pay for it.

A 25,000 seat arena may seem like it is good for fans, but is it? With the TV angles we get nowadays who wants to sit on the fourth deck to watch a hockey game? Considering these seats are the most expensive to build and bring in the least revenue, it isn't good for the team either, and they will want to pass these exponentially inflated construction costs onto the consumer. So you might get more capacity, but are likely going to be paying the same price as the worst seat in the Saddledome for a much worse seat in the new arena because it's a good fifty feet further from the ice. Is that better for anybody?

[ByeByeBaby]

If you went to any one of the millionaire/billionaire businessmen who are owners of this hockey club with a proposal this thinly and half-assedly thought out asking for half a billion dollars in investment, do you really think they would treat it seriously? If you think the answer is yes, then ask yourself if you went asking for a half a billion dollars in donations with this napkin sketch if they'd open their purses.

Is McMahon old? Yes. Is the Saddledome old? Sure getting there. Should we replace these facilities? Probably. Should they be in the West Village? Not a terrible idea. But this proposal is amateurish and embarrassing to the point that it's an insult. If I went to them with this business proposal, I'd be laughed out of their offices, and I can't understand why we shouldn't do the same to them.

They're asking for a gift worth over half a billion dollars; they can spend a few hundred grand or even a few million producing a serious proposal with a design, not the numbers you wrote on a napkin at lunch and a rendering your nephew did in SketchUp.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

In the end it is probably better to bundle it [the ticket tax] with the CRL and use it to revenue smooth the loans so that the CRL doesn't accumulate additional debt beyond the original capital spend based on the development lag, but that doesn't mean it has to be.

There's an interesting idea.

[MalcolmTucker]

It is a damned if you do damned if you don't. They want to get feedback and revise, and work with existing organizations. Sort of hard to do so with an ever widening amount of non-disclosure agreements to get to the point of an announcement where people will yell about how everything has already been decided and it is an affront to not have held public consultations earlier to help develop the concept more.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

This is a good point. What are the chances the WV can generate enough tax revenue to pay off a $240M if half the area is used for a non-taxable stadium? The CRL would probably need hundreds of millions more to complete clean up and service/attract tenants.

The proposed CRL makes less sense with the arena being city-owned. If the team owned it and paid property taxes on it, then it would provide the anchor tenant for a CRL. This would effectively make it a cheap loan to the team they would use their own property tax to repay. The more development that happens after, the less of the loan they need to pay back on their own which is good for them, and despite the city effectively forfeiting property tax dollars to fund the arena, they can at least say it went to rejuvenating the area in the first place, but be able to map out when the $240M investment will actually show a positive return for the city. I don't think that could happen if the largest building in the CRL area is city-owned.

Unless I'm way out to lunch on how a CRL would work.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

If you went to any one of the millionaire/billionaire businessmen who are owners of this hockey club with a proposal this thinly and half-assedly thought out asking for half a billion dollars in investment, do you really think they would treat it seriously? If you think the answer is yes, then ask yourself if you went asking for a half a billion dollars in donations with this napkin sketch if they'd open their purses.

Is McMahon old? Yes. Is the Saddledome old? Sure getting there. Should we replace these facilities? Probably. Should they be in the West Village? Not a terrible idea. But this proposal is amateurish and embarrassing to the point that it's an insult. If I went to them with this business proposal, I'd be laughed out of their offices, and I can't understand why we shouldn't do the same to them.

They're asking for a gift worth over half a billion dollars; they can spend a few hundred grand or even a few million producing a serious proposal with a design, not the numbers you wrote on a napkin at lunch and a rendering your nephew did in SketchUp.

Well said.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

The proposed CRL makes less sense with the arena being city-owned. If the team owned it and paid property taxes on it, then it would provide the anchor tenant for a CRL. This would effectively make it a cheap loan to the team they would use their own property tax to repay. The more development that happens after, the less of the loan they need to pay back on their own which is good for them, and despite the city effectively forfeiting property tax dollars to fund the arena, they can at least say it went to rejuvenating the area in the first place, but be able to map out when the $240M investment will actually show a positive return for the city. I don't think that could happen if the largest building in the CRL area is city-owned.

Unless I'm way out to lunch on how a CRL would work.

You're right about the CRL, but the proposal is for the city to own the arena.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

Tunneling the the northern section of the road would be ideal to allow for a riverfront promenade with active retail alongside the stadium, but that is likely cost prohibitive.

With the massive amount of cleanup that site needs, which will likely amount to digging a gigantic hole/trench and removing a huge amount of contaminated material from the site? At that point you are better off just using that excavation to construct a cut and cover tunnel as you are spending the money on the "cut" portion regardless for the site cleanup.

At least that gives the city (us tax payers) an added benefit from having to foot the bill for the site cleanup. I would like to see Bow Trail go underground, at the northern (westbound) side at the very least, but if they dropped both the east and west portions underground through west village that would be ideal.

With both Bow Trail and the CPR tracks the West Village is very tough to make into a proper pedestrian environment, and with the river right there and this new sports complex going in the City should be doing their absolute best to make that whole area very pedestrian friendly.

[osmo]

Flames won't leave Calgary...

Name a American market where you would make the same money...

This isn't the 90's, no team is leaving Canada.

Arena will get built some how some way, it's the Stadium that is the tricky part.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Let's be clear. A new stadium of the same size is better for the owners.

Current annual operating income for the owners: $23 M.

My understanding is the profits from events they bring in is more than the operating income of the sports teams.

[Bokimon]

I'm glad my ranting post earlier somehow started something. Though a bit off handed in my comments, but I believe I raise a decent point about the mentality of the ownership culture and the way they presented themselves when showing off this huge game changing project to the public. The Monorail episode of the Simpsons reflects very similar to this project, a comparison that I agree. I just don't want us to end up footing the bill or getting shafted in some way while only these guys benefit during the lifetime of the facility. When they only are committed to pitching in a fraction of the total cost, it brings a worrying tone to the long term viability of a fancy new facility. Maybe the city does pay for it and charge rent to the teams to recoup all those public funds?
If the intent of this was to show off the conceptual idea of what the facility would look like or how they would function together, and who would be paying for this, then I guess they did their job. Though I personally disagree.

I would of at least hired an architectural firm to do some preliminary design work and urban planning studies to at least expose the potential challenges that will come up if this complex gets built. Ontop of that a firm can produce much more detailed and realistic renders as well suitable for media and public release.