New Downtown Calgary Arena

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Halofire

NMC, Arts Commons, Jubilee are different in that they are non-profit organizations that are entrusted balance a need to generate revenue to maintain their facilities as well as provide public services like high school graduations, amateur performance space, and artist development. The stadium's primary purpose is to host flames games, and then they schedule whatever they can to fill in the rest of the time.

I have minimal issue with government sponsorship of facilities like Max Bell Area and WinSport, because they are built to a scale which actually facilitates public use, and no single professional sports organization dictates their schedule.

I know it's not a perfect argument, but that's the grey area in-between.

The Jubilee has 76 announced shows for the next year.

The four main tenants are:

• ALBERTA BALLET 13 shows
• C.P.O SYMPHONY 3 shows
• CALGARY OPERA 10 shows
• KEY BRAND ENTERTAINMENT (BROADWAY ACROSS CANADA) 26 shows

So yeah. The greatest tenant by number of performances is as date intensive as all of the other permanent tenants put together, is a billion dollar for profit corporation.

You think Key Brands doesn't get to call the tune at the Jubilee?

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The Jubilee has 76 announced shows for the next year.

The four main tenants are:

• ALBERTA BALLET 13 shows
• C.P.O SYMPHONY 3 shows
• CALGARY OPERA 10 shows
• KEY BRAND ENTERTAINMENT (BROADWAY ACROSS CANADA) 26 shows

So yeah. The greatest tenant by number of performances is as date intensive as all of the other permanent tenants put together, is a billion dollar for profit corporation.

You think Key Brands doesn't get to call the tune at the Jubilee?

That's a terrible metric for Jubilee shows; musicals have matinees on weekends whereas opera has to alternate dark nights due to the demands on the vocal cords of the performers. This November, Broadway Across Canada did Once (3rd to 8th) and Calgary Opera is doing Lakme (21st to 27th); both have 6 day runs from first to last show. Yet there are 8 shows for Once, and 3 for Lakme. (The Opera is actually occupying the Jube for longer to do their show since they have a dress rehearsal this Thursday; BAC does a show in Calgary on Sunday and then moves the show to Edmonton starting the next Tuesday).

By my count of days occupied (not including load in / dress / strike days - just from first to last performance), the Jube is occupied for 22 days by Broadway Across Canada, 22 days by Calgary Opera (actually more because their load in is longer), 19 by Alberta Ballet (or their guest companies), 4 by CPO, 17 days of concerts or other professional performances and 4 days of community events - although grad season is after May. I don't know why you think a tenant occupying 25% of the time would be the one calling the shots, unless they pay substantially more than the arts orgs for their time.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by Socguy

It's by no means a done deal. The Edmonton deal died on the table half a dozen times before squeaking by. It only survived because they had a mayor who took a personal interest in making it work and there was a real argument that moving an arena downtown would generate redevelopment and so on.

I don't think Nenshi feels the same way as Mandel. Who is going to champion this project in city council when it's going to cost the city twice what Edmonton's did and the redevelopment argument is so thin, it's transparent?

What I'm saying is that a new arena is inevitable. Whether it's 3 years, 5 years or 10 years, we're going to need one. This is the only group stepping up to pay for a portion of it. You may not like the portion, but the province or city isn't going to jump in to ever build the whole thing, so get ready one way or another for your tax dollars to be involved in Calgary's 'Next' stadium/arena development at some point

[Riise]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

What I'm saying is that a new arena is inevitable. Whether it's 3 years, 5 years or 10 years, we're going to need one. This is the only group stepping up to pay for a portion of it. You may not like the portion, but the province or city isn't going to jump in to ever build the whole thing, so get ready one way or another for your tax dollars to be involved in Calgary's 'Next' stadium/arena development at some pointt

If the first section in bold is true and a new arena will never be fully financed by the private sector, does the second section in bold have to be true? Especially when the private firm wants the City to be the owner of the arena.

At what point does the Province and City say, "Fuck it, let's just build the damn thing ourselves and customize it to meet our needs."?

[CalgaryArchitecture]

Ken King was just on AM770 this morning and confirmed that their will be a translucent roof for the field house. He also mentioned their would be a unique feature that has never been done before.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by CalgaryArchitecture

Ken King was just on AM770 this morning and confirmed that their will be a translucent roof for the field house. He also mentioned their would be a unique feature that has never been done before.

Their, there, they're - c'mon, this shit ain't rocket science.

[monocle]

Originally Posted by CalgaryArchitecture

Ken King was just on AM770 this morning and confirmed that their will be a translucent roof for the field house. He also mentioned their would be a unique feature that has never been done before.

OK, stadium nerds: what kind of unique features are out there? Mechanically moving seating (for different events)? Field turf AND natural grass options? Seat side concession delivery (ala Costco air tubes)?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by CalgaryArchitecture

Ken King was just on AM770 this morning and confirmed that their will be a translucent roof for the field house. He also mentioned their would be a unique feature that has never been done before.

Ken King doesn't know what he is doing. Someone probably pitched this to him, he thought it was cool, and then he just ran with it, without any due diligence. I doubt they have any idea of cost, technical feasibility, impact on structural design, etc. Just a pie-in-the-sky idea that they like.

This is the most poorly thought out project I have seen. I don't think they gave more thought to it than a bunch of teenagers fantasizing about how cool the skateboard ramp they want to build in their backyard would be.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Riise

If the first section in bold is true and a new arena will never be fully financed by the private sector, does the second section in bold have to be true? Especially when the private firm wants the City to be the owner of the arena.

At what point does the Province and City say, "Fuck it, let's just build the damn thing ourselves and customize it to meet our needs."?

If we (the public) are going to foot the bill for construction, then lets build what we need where we need it (i.e. field house at foothills). Then it can be managed similar to our other public assets.

Further if we are paying for it we should build it where the costs are reduced (foothills) rather than someplace where we have significant other costs and the project would take away future revenue (land sales & property tax).

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The Jubilee has 76 announced shows for the next year.

The four main tenants are:

• ALBERTA BALLET 13 shows
• C.P.O SYMPHONY 3 shows
• CALGARY OPERA 10 shows
• KEY BRAND ENTERTAINMENT (BROADWAY ACROSS CANADA) 26 shows

So yeah. The greatest tenant by number of performances is as date intensive as all of the other permanent tenants put together, is a billion dollar for profit corporation.

You think Key Brands doesn't get to call the tune at the Jubilee?

It's possible Key Brand gets special consideration for scale, but that's one snapshot in time. However, along with what ByeByeBaby said, I think the option for the Jubilee to seek out other tenants is much more viable.

[MalcolmTucker]

Still, we shouldn't hold any illusions that the majority of the activities are profit making events, even moreso when you count all the one off concerts. The snapshot nature of it captures the rest of the season of the main tenants, which may vary based on demand, but it isn't like Key Brands is just going to disappear.

The point still stands that somehow an arena feels different, but it isn't really all that different. By aligning with and using arguments of people who also don't want government support for the arts, and use the same arguments for it, I think we end up on a dangerous path.

If an arena is something the city wants, we should by all means try to get the best deal for providing that service. It the context of most north american arena development deals we have something somewhat reasonable on the table at the starting point at least.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by monocle

OK, stadium nerds: what kind of unique features are out there? Mechanically moving seating (for different events)? Field turf AND natural grass options? Seat side concession delivery (ala Costco air tubes)?

Think it's the modifiable roof panels that were leaked last year:

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by Riise

If the first section in bold is true and a new arena will never be fully financed by the private sector, does the second section in bold have to be true? Especially when the private firm wants the City to be the owner of the arena.

At what point does the Province and City say, "Fuck it, let's just build the damn thing ourselves and customize it to meet our needs."?

I just don't think it will be a priority to the point where the city/province is willing to fund the entire thing.

Originally Posted by CalgaryArchitecture

Ken King was just on AM770 this morning and confirmed that their will be a translucent roof for the field house. He also mentioned their would be a unique feature that has never been done before.

This stuff is just ridiculous. How do these concepts even exist if there isn't really a master design for this.

[Spring2008]

I agree. I also think ownership came in with a low-ball offer knowing the city's at the opposite end of the spectrum, unwilling to offer any money aside from fieldhouse and infrastructure. I'm pretty sure ownership will be expected to at least double the amount of equity they're offering. The levy for example doesn't make sense. If the city were to offer a levy it would be for supporting infrastructure/public realm for the entire West Village neighborhood similar to EV, not to finance the stadium/arena directly as was proposed.

Originally Posted by fusili

Ken King doesn't know what he is doing. Someone probably pitched this to him, he thought it was cool, and then he just ran with it, without any due diligence. I doubt they have any idea of cost, technical feasibility, impact on structural design, etc. Just a pie-in-the-sky idea that they like.

This is the most poorly thought out project I have seen. I don't think they gave more thought to it than a bunch of teenagers fantasizing about how cool the skateboard ramp they want to build in their backyard would be.

[Socguy]

Bettman was in town and he's playing his assigned role of applying pressure to the City. Half trying to shame the city (2nd oldest rink) and then trotting out the tired cliche of economic benefits

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/gary-bettman-calgarynext-chamber-commerce-1.3398581

[Fuzz]

When all you have is a hammer....

[Calgarian]

Bettman can pay for part of it himself if it's so damn crucial to one of the most successful markets in the whole league!

CalgaryNEXT WILL get built, but in what form remains to be seen. I think we still have several years of back and forth before the design is finalized and the permit process begins.

[simster3]

Did he announce the League's $100M contribution? That would be a good start when you are pushing a city to build an arena for you and your league.

[Cage]

Being a member of the Chamber of Commerce, I was at the Bettman event.

The agenda for the event was 1/2 about CalgaryNext and 1/2 about league, but in reality it was all about CalgaryNext.

Overall I think Bettman gave a good presentation about the need for a new arena, the business case for the arena is solid, IMHO. For the record, going into the meeting I was skeptical about the need for a new arena.

For the doubters out there, for people who just want to hate Bettman for being NHL Commish, or hate the CalgaryNext proposal because its public money for private interests; I submit the CFL Commissioner should come to Calgary and advocate for the stadium/field-house portion of the venue. I doubt the CFL business case is solid as Bettman/NHL.

Something I learned at the luncheon, NHL revenues have grown from $400 million to over $4 billion under Bettman's 23 year tenure. I would estimate that inflation and league growth by 6 teams would account for natural rise in revenue to $1.5 to $2 Billion. The other $2 billion has to come from revenue expansion realized in part by newer stadiums.

Another aspect of Bettman's speech, the City and in-particular the city political leaders need to get behind this proposal if its to be brought to fruition. Bettman did correctly point out that Edmonton's Mayor at the time, Mandel, was 110% behind the new arena and sportsplex proposal. During the Q&A session with Chamber CEO, Bettman did disclose he requested a meeting with Mayor but could not fit it into their schedules. I find it interesting that Bettman is in Calgary during the City Council's scheduled meeting. It provides a convenient out for everyone involved.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Cage

Being a member of the Chamber of Commerce, I was at the Bettman event.

The agenda for the event was 1/2 about CalgaryNext and 1/2 about league, but in reality it was all about CalgaryNext.

Overall I think Bettman gave a good presentation about the need for a new arena, the business case for the arena is solid, IMHO. For the record, going into the meeting I was skeptical about the need for a new arena.

For the doubters out there, for people who just want to hate Bettman for being NHL Commish, or hate the CalgaryNext proposal because its public money for private interests; I submit the CFL Commissioner should come to Calgary and advocate for the stadium/field-house portion of the venue. I doubt the CFL business case is solid as Bettman/NHL.

Something I learned at the luncheon, NHL revenues have grown from $400 million to over $4 billion under Bettman's 23 year tenure. I would estimate that inflation and league growth by 6 teams would account for natural rise in revenue to $1.5 to $2 Billion. The other $2 billion has to come from revenue expansion realized in part by newer stadiums.

Another aspect of Bettman's speech, the City and in-particular the city political leaders need to get behind this proposal if its to be brought to fruition. Bettman did correctly point out that Edmonton's Mayor at the time, Mandel, was 110% behind the new arena and sportsplex proposal. During the Q&A session with Chamber CEO, Bettman did disclose he requested a meeting with Mayor but could not fit it into their schedules. I find it interesting that Bettman is in Calgary during the City Council's scheduled meeting. It provides a convenient out for everyone involved.

I think Libin selling the international hotel may have been in prep to get his portion in place (percentage of the owners' percentage). Interestingly, he sold it to Greenberg, the Ottawa team's owner. The formulas are complicated as these things are always about more than it seems. The knock-on benefits, oh the knock-on benefits!