New Downtown Calgary Arena

[O-tacular]

Does it have a green roof in the new renderings? Again, added cost. Also confusing since the interior shots seem to show a semi transparent roof.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

The 2nd-last rendering in your post shows westbound Bow Trail disappearing into a tunnel portal just east of the complex, and seemingly re-emerging just west of it, heading in a south-westerly direction at that point.

Tunnels are cheap, right?

If CalgaryNEXT goes in this location (I don't think it should), I would support a tunnel so that the development can better be connected to the river. In fact, it may be a good idea for the development even without the arena. Separating a development like that from it's greatest amenity is a penny-wise, pound foolish plan.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by fusili

If CalgaryNEXT goes in this location (I don't think it should), I would support a tunnel so that the development can better be connected to the river. In fact, it may be a good idea for the development even without the arena. Separating a development like that from it's greatest amenity is a penny-wise, pound foolish plan.

I think I'd agree with that. I just can't help chuckling at their continued insistence that the project is $890 million and that all other external costs can be shuffled under the rug.

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

The 2nd-last rendering in your post shows westbound Bow Trail disappearing into a tunnel portal just east of the complex, and seemingly re-emerging just west of it, heading in a south-westerly direction at that point.

Tunnels are cheap, right?

This one is more like a raised landscape on top of the existing Bow Trail. I don't think the elevation of Bow Trail itself change at all. That could open up an opportunity for adding on-and-off ramps to underground parking -- looks like. I am assuming the same can be applied to east-bound Bow Trail and perhaps the CPR tracks (I doubt it)--that would seamlessly link Sunalta neighbourhood with the river.

[odogfo]

Here's a link to the full report from the Flames organization. It's interesting and answers some of the questions.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316867103/CalgaryNEXT-Response-to-DCM-Report#fullscreen

[odogfo]

This link to a neat video says the arena will bridge over bow trail.

http://calgarynext.com/img/2016_0626_Calgary_Next_Video_Final.mp4

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by odogfo

Here's a link to the full report from the Flames organization. It's interesting and answers some of the questions.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316867103/CalgaryNEXT-Response-to-DCM-Report#fullscreen

If CSEC think that all the creosote cleanup can be done for $50 million with no possibility of overruns, I think the City should sign a deal with them on those terms, and then when everything's been cleaned up we can decide what to do with the land. Hell, give them $55 million, it's a massive profit for them.

[fusili]

What I loved best was that Ken King basically said that the Flames didn't want to own the arena because it is a depreciating asset and they didn't want the liability. What makes them think that the public should?

[MalcolmTucker]

Because governments can do things for non-economic reasons. In fact, it is one of their core functions!

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Because governments can do things for non-economic reasons. In fact, it is one of their core functions!

Fair point. But there is a line where government responsibility should end. I think professional sports stadiums are one of them. A field house for amateur athletics, for sure. But not a facility that is primarily used for private business.

[MalcolmTucker]

This is where the point of difficulty is: if we didn't have an arena, and we didn't have professional sports would the city build one? We seem perfectly fine missing out on the outdoor concerts Edmonton enjoys, but will that be the case for arena shows?

We built large government owned theatres for professional touring musical theatre productions that are owned by billionaires. I just don't see the difference with professional sports for the purpose of making decisions— it is totally aestheics.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

We built large government owned theatres for professional touring musical theatre productions that are owned by billionaires. I just don't see the difference with professional sports for the purpose of making decisions— it is totally aestheics.

The difference is that the professional touring musical theatre presentations and one-off concerts are a side dish next to the real reason those theatres exist... to provide a home for local performing arts groups like the Calgary Philharmonic, Alberta Ballet, Calgary Opera, etc. So it's not quite the same thing as an arena that wouldn't exist if it weren't for a pro hockey team made up of wealthy players and ultra-wealthy owners.

[artvandelay]

The above posts are a good example of the inability of your average person to distinguish between the wealth of an organization and the wealth of its owners. Did any of the Flames owners achieve their personal wealth via the ownership of the Flames? or did these fortunes come from other sources?

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

The above posts are a good example of the inability of your average person to distinguish between the wealth of an organization and the wealth of its owners. Did any of the Flames owners achieve their personal wealth via the ownership of the Flames? or did these fortunes come from other sources?

I can't answer that directly. But...

This says that the Atlanta Flames were purchased for $16 million. This says the Flames are "now" worth $435 million (it's unclear when the list was compiled).

If I'm doing my math right, that's a 9.6% compounded annual return. Not too shabby. Obviously those are "paper" profits only to some degree, but ownership group members have changed over time, I assume that some former owners (or their estates, as some have passed on) extracted some profit from their ownership.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

We built large government owned theatres for professional touring musical theatre productions that are owned by billionaires. I just don't see the difference with professional sports for the purpose of making decisions— it is totally aestheics.

We decided in 1954 to build theatres for a billionaire theatre producer who would be born in 1962 in England? There's influence, and there's reaching-backwards-through-time-and-space influence. I don't know how to protect against that sort of billionaire influence, but we can certainly say no to the workaday billionaires who move through time at the same speed as us.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Even given all the best technological improvements for air circulation and efficiency I don't see how they expect this to actually function well. 25,000 CFL fans drinking beer and making a mess in the stands in an enclosed facility which, because it's also used for sweaty runners and community sports is going to smell like an old gym bag in five years time. Ugh. A big fat smelly no for me. And I still don't get why we'd build a community field house that isn't usable for 18 + some practice days every year. Blow away 1/12th of the functioning time for a community space?

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

I can't answer that directly. But...

This says that the Atlanta Flames were purchased for $16 million. This says the Flames are "now" worth $435 million (it's unclear when the list was compiled).

If I'm doing my math right, that's a 9.6% compounded annual return. Not too shabby. Obviously those are "paper" profits only to some degree, but ownership group members have changed over time, I assume that some former owners (or their estates, as some have passed on) extracted some profit from their ownership.

That's not a bad return, but you could achieve the same for much less hassle by buying the the S&P index.

Also, the Forbes estimates are not accurate by any means, but if you were to value the Flames based on Forbes' average estimated operating income over the past five years ($15 million) at an aggressive business cap rate of 15%, you'd get a value of $100 million to the rational investor.

To achieve these insane Forbes valuations, you need to have irrational investors in the marketplace. These people own teams due to ego, fanaticism, or a sense of community. In general, sports team owners are wealthy in spite of their sports team investment, not because of it.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by fusili

What I loved best was that Ken King basically said that the Flames didn't want to own the arena because it is a depreciating asset and they didn't want the liability. What makes them think that the public should?

Makes me think of that John Oliver bit...

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

We decided in 1954 to build theatres for a billionaire theatre producer who would be born in 1962 in England? There's influence, and there's reaching-backwards-through-time-and-space influence. I don't know how to protect against that sort of billionaire influence, but we can certainly say no to the workaday billionaires who move through time at the same speed as us.

About $76 million just ten years ago.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

About $76 million just ten years ago.

Also, Arts Commons:

Built in 1970 at a cost of $102.4 million with an annual operating subsidy of $2.4 million (PV of say $60 million).

A total cost of $162.4M in 1985 equals $333.61 today.