New Downtown Calgary Arena

[McMurph]

I recently went to a Barcelona game at Camp Nou -- 99,000 people and extremely limited facilities. Couldn't even have a beer in the stands. Put a good product (and a proper sport) on the field and people will fill a shitty stadium to see it. If you have a good enough team the stadium becomes iconic despite itself (like the old Forum in MTL). It's interesting that two of the most boring sports in the world (american football and baseball*) seem to be completely dependent on glitzing out the consumer experience with gigantic screens and gourmet food... except in places like Boston where it's all about atmosphere and history.

I'd be happy with a better stadium, in part because I'd love to see Calgary get an MLS team and some international football action in the future. I don't mind the Stamps or the CFL, but they don't really need a palace and a palace isn't going to suddenly make them the Riders or the Cowboys in terms of community importance.

*please let's not debate the merit of various sports. I'm just defining boring on a purely personal grounds, plus the metric of how much time the stupid ball is actually moving.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by esquire

It's more complicated than whether a new venue draws fans or not... Bomber attendance at IGF was hindered by an abysmal team which has tested the patience of the fanbase.

Of course it's more complicated than "new stadiums cause attendance increases". But when Luk_o says "No doubt a better stadium would improve attendance", and tomthumb2 says "I think attendance would be better here if we actually had a professional grade stadium".... well hey, there's a testable hypothesis.

And of course me looking at Winnipeg's example is, oh, 9 yards short of an analysis, it's very difficult to find examples in the CFL that will prove that point. Toronto and Hamilton very recently moved into smaller venues. I'm not sure Montreal's experience is easily transferred anywhere else (and even if you wanted to... well... McMahon's attendance, on its worst days, is still higher than Molson's capacity).

CalgaryNEXT proposes a smaller venue than McMahon, so you're going to cut the top off of the best-selling games. Probably compensated by better attendance on crappy-weather games, but that's just guesswork.

Will these new or smaller venues make for "better atmosphere", "better revenue/costs", or "better whatever-you-want-to-argue"? Go ahead and make the argument. I'm just commenting on the "increased attendance" claim. Frankly, I wish I'd found otherwise...

[esquire]

^ Based on the scorn that SSP forum members have for McMahon, it certainly seems like a reasonable possibility... even in places where new stadiums were built (Winnipeg, Regina, Hamilton), while there was a general acknowledgment that the old ones were shabby and outdated, the old venues weren't really cited as a reason why people stayed away in the same way that McMahon appears to be. The old stadiums just had a ton of deferred maintenance and an almost total lack of any sort of revenue streams beyond basic seating, which is what led to their replacement.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by McMurph

I recently went to a Barcelona game at Camp Nou -- 99,000 people and extremely limited facilities. Couldn't even have a beer in the stands. Put a good product (and a proper sport) on the field and people will fill a shitty stadium to see it. If you have a good enough team the stadium becomes iconic despite itself (like the old Forum in MTL). It's interesting that two of the most boring sports in the world (american football and baseball*) seem to be completely dependent on glitzing out the consumer experience with gigantic screens and gourmet food... except in places like Boston where it's all about atmosphere and history.

You are bang on. The primary reason for new facilities is to boost non-sports events, which actually make the "entertainment group" ownership more money than the Flames (even in the Saddledome). The angle has always been, get the city to pay under the guise of sports, and then use the super low lease and/or advantageously had facility to make the real money - on entertainment, food, beer, parking, sponsorships.

Originally Posted by esquire

The old stadiums just had a ton of deferred maintenance and an almost total lack of any sort of revenue streams beyond basic seating, which is what led to their replacement.

Precisely the reason the entertainment companies who own the teams and run the shows should pay a higher proportion of stadium / arena costs. It is really less about the sports.

[mytwocents]

I would like to see a new hockey stadium moved 2 blocks north so it could be right beside the new LRT station. But honestly new stadiums aren't what attract attendance. Taylor Field in Regina was always crappy and in the 90s it was far from selling out but guess what, the team got better the play improved and more people showed up.

I would rather see a game in an average stadium where ticket prices are cheaper than in a new glitzy stadium where I can order sushi and craft beer but really I just want a hot dog and beer.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MasterG

+1.

I never quite understood the rationale behind a McMahon replacement being so integrated into the arena plan. McMahon is dilapidated but can be vastly improved with limited investment. As others mentioned, the economics and support for the arena is vastly different than a stadium that only sees a few dozen events a year, many without a need for much seating at all.

I get it that the Flames ownership would love the easiness of a single location so they can run things more integrated, but that doesn't seem like enough rationale on it's own to ask for another few dozen acres of prime downtown land in addition to an arena (which has vastly different location criteria and economic throughput).

Can someone enlighten me to why they need to be combined?

Good post! I'd be more gung ho about a new arena and stadium if it didnt involve chewing up riverfront land in west village. It's almost a pity we don't have a giant empty lot sitting on old industrial land in the outskirts of downtown...larger than west village of course.

Also, are we going to see the owners lobbying government for money for new facilities every 30-40 years? Once the Saddledome and McMahon are bulldozed what can we expect to see happen to the land? Potential redevelopment?

[GORDBO]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Impossible to know this in advance of course, but Winnipeg's experience doesn't provide strong support for this.

New stadium average attendance per game, each season 2013-2016: 30,637.1 - 28,314.1 - 26,745.9 - 25,935.8

Old stadium, each season 2000-2012: 25,259.4 - 27,033 - 27,559.7 - 27,225 - 24,218.4 - 24,317.2 - 26,987.8 - 27,701 - 27,150.8 - 25,720 - 26,083.2 - 29,558.7 - 27,981.1

A nice little bump in 2013 and 2014 (new stadium smell!), but 2015 and 2016 were firmly inside recent historical norms.

If the Stamps were to get an indoor stadium, they could probably expect to have an easier sell to fair-weather fans, especially for the autumn games. On the other hand, ticket prices are bound to be more expensive, so you'll lose a few price-sensitive fans in the process.

(Data source: https://stats.cfldb.ca/team/winnipeg-blue-bombers/attendance/2016/ and similar web pages for each year.)

The main reason people are staying away from I G F. is not only because of their record as of late, but mostly due to the inefficiant transportation routes getting to and from the stadium. Construction is underway on a BRT line, but wont be in operation for another 3+ years. Another downside keeping fans at home watching on tv, is the narrow concourse. It's comfortable moving around with 27,000, but when it does sell out [33,500] it becomes almost impossible to move around before/half time/after the game. I used to attend most games per season, now I'm down to 1-2, and thats mostly because of free tickets.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I didn't want to put words in his mouth - he did say stadium. Additionally, the touchstone for new construction was CalgaryNEXT, a combined stadium and arena. That needs 1.) space, and 2.) if not done extremely carefully, can really create a massive deadzone in and of itself given the footprint and logistics in the immediate surrounding.

I meant both the stadium and arena. I think 50 years ago when McMahon was being planned things were very different, and the University benefits from having facilities, so I don't regret that it was there for this part of Calgary's history, but for the next part - If it is to move - Downtown is the best option.

[ZeDgE]

Originally Posted by McMurph

I recently went to a Barcelona game at Camp Nou -- 99,000 people and extremely limited facilities. Couldn't even have a beer in the stands. Put a good product (and a proper sport) on the field and people will fill a shitty stadium to see it. If you have a good enough team the stadium becomes iconic despite itself (like the old Forum in MTL). It's interesting that two of the most boring sports in the world (american football and baseball*) seem to be completely dependent on glitzing out the consumer experience with gigantic screens and gourmet food... except in places like Boston where it's all about atmosphere and history.

I'd be happy with a better stadium, in part because I'd love to see Calgary get an MLS team and some international football action in the future. I don't mind the Stamps or the CFL, but they don't really need a palace and a palace isn't going to suddenly make them the Riders or the Cowboys in terms of community importance.

*please let's not debate the merit of various sports. I'm just defining boring on a purely personal grounds, plus the metric of how much time the stupid ball is actually moving.

No offence to Calgary sports fans (i'm one of them) but we are 'filthy casuals" to put it bluntly, compared to football fans in Europe. They would stand the whole game if they had to.

We are fickle fans here and need the comforts and modern conveniences. The Stamps are proof of this, best team in the league, crap stadium with crap facilities and games did not sell out.

[bap1989]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Good post! I'd be more gung ho about a new arena and stadium if it didnt involve chewing up riverfront land in west village. It's almost a pity we don't have a giant empty lot sitting on old industrial land in the outskirts of downtown...larger than west village of course.

Also, are we going to see the owners lobbying government for money for new facilities every 30-40 years? Once the Saddledome and McMahon are bulldozed what can we expect to see happen to the land? Potential redevelopment?

When I see posts like this I always wonder what better use riverfront land could have. Sure there is money to be made selling the land to condo developers but to me that ends up limiting public use of the land as evidenced by all the condos along the gated condos along the riverfront now.

Surely there won't be another commercial center if the new Eau Claire proposal ever goes ahead, so what's wrong with throwing down a big arena/stadium to draw even more people to the riverfront.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by bap1989

When I see posts like this I always wonder what better use riverfront land could have. Sure there is money to be made selling the land to condo developers but to me that ends up limiting public use of the land as evidenced by all the condos along the gated condos along the riverfront now.

Surely there won't be another commercial center if the new Eau Claire proposal ever goes ahead, so what's wrong with throwing down a big arena/stadium to draw even more people to the riverfront.

My thoughts exactly, I don't see any issue with having venues that will attract 10's of thousands to the river front and allow them to actually enjoy it rather than having to look at a bunch of ugly condo towers with their balconies protruding all the way to the top

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by ZeDgE

No offence to Calgary sports fans (i'm one of them) but we are 'filthy casuals" to put it bluntly, compared to football fans in Europe. They would stand the whole game if they had to.

We are fickle fans here and need the comforts and modern conveniences. The Stamps are proof of this, best team in the league, crap stadium with crap facilities and games did not sell out.

And the other aspect of it is the overall demographic. Fancy new stadium will mean more expensive tickets, and a further deterioration of the youth and families at games. It is not about the games any more, but about the corporate deals that can be had. Sports in north america, for the most part, are a failure when thinking at this level.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by bap1989

When I see posts like this I always wonder what better use riverfront land could have. Sure there is money to be made selling the land to condo developers but to me that ends up limiting public use of the land as evidenced by all the condos along the gated condos along the riverfront now.

Surely there won't be another commercial center if the new Eau Claire proposal ever goes ahead, so what's wrong with throwing down a big arena/stadium to draw even more people to the riverfront.

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

My thoughts exactly, I don't see any issue with having venues that will attract 10's of thousands to the river front and allow them to actually enjoy it rather than having to look at a bunch of ugly condo towers with their balconies protruding all the way to the top

Over the course of a year what percentage of time would an arena/stadium bring people to the area versus residential buildings with retail and an attractive riverfront? I'm guessing the latter would do more for vibrancy in an area than the sports facility.

Definitely planning must be better to eliminate the "gated community" feel like those condos in the Eau Claire area, I'd say East Village is doing a good job showing how we can keep the riverfront area open for public use and retail while residential is close at hand.

[Rollerstud98]

Plan the venues properly and you can have 300+ events a year. I will always be against condo towers though as I just find them so ugly.

[mytwocents]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Good post! I'd be more gung ho about a new arena and stadium if it didnt involve chewing up riverfront land in west village. It's almost a pity we don't have a giant empty lot sitting on old industrial land in the outskirts of downtown...larger than west village of course.

We already have land 2 blocks north of where the current stadium but I don't know who owns it. An arena could fit there quite nicely and be tied in easily with the future green line.

[Bigtime]

The parking lots north of the Saddledome right up to 12th avenue are owned by the Stampede, and this is most likely where the new arena will go.

[Rollerstud98]

Who currently gets the concession revenues at Flames games? I think it is the Stampede but I may be wrong. If it is the Stampede I could see the Flames ownership not wanting to be on their grounds just for this. That is a lot of money every night. Reason I think it is Stampede is because you look at the Flames revenue and even with larger overall crowds for the season they usually bring in less money by factors of millions.

[MalcolmTucker]

The Flames have a facility wide lease, have for at least 18-20 years. The Stampede has never owned the facility.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by mytwocents

We already have land 2 blocks north of where the current stadium but I don't know who owns it. An arena could fit there quite nicely and be tied in easily with the future green line.

The Parking lots are owned and controlled by Calgary Exhibition and Stampede (CES).

However immediately to the east is two blocks partly owned by CES and partly owned by the City. Further there are several longstanding agreements on the land such that redevelopment is complicated under any scenario. For example, there is a halfway house on 13th Avenue SW that is required to be relocated under any redevelopment scenario. The redevelopment must include the cost of new facilities.

Originally Posted by Bigtime

The parking lots north of the Saddledome right up to 12th avenue are owned by the Stampede, and this is most likely where the new arena will go.

Further expanding on the land ownership North of 11 Avenue. This area is owned and controlled by Remington family/group of companies. This is where the Railtown redevelopment is planned once the East Village area is completed. Further, the Railtown area is currently under the East Village CRL and therefore any CRL proposal for the arena cannot use the Railtown lands.

One possible scenario to back room finance the CalgaryNext Plan B site is for the city to cover the Railtown land contribution to the existing East Village CRL, thereby allowing the Plan B site to utilize a new CRL for East Victoria Park. Its backroom because the City would never press release the fact they took on an additional $150 million debt to release Railtown/Victoria Park from the East Village CRL.

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Who currently gets the concession revenues at Flames games? I think it is the Stampede but I may be wrong. If it is the Stampede I could see the Flames ownership not wanting to be on their grounds just for this. That is a lot of money every night. Reason I think it is Stampede is because you look at the Flames revenue and even with larger overall crowds for the season they usually bring in less money by factors of millions.

The Scotiabank Saddledome is owned by the Calgary Saddledome Foundation. In turn the Calgary Saddledome Foundation turn over management to CSEG for $1.5 million per annum. The Saddledome foundation is incorporated by City of Calgary under the AB Societies Act.

The concessions are controlled by CSEG under management agreement from the Saddledome Foundation. The same management team for Saddledome retail also operates McMahon, although front line employees rarely operate at both sites.

CES gets to nominate one person onto the Saddledome Foundation board. Likewise, CSEG gets to nominate one board member onto the Saddledome Foundation. Common ground between the Saddledome Foundation and CES is found mostly at the City of Calgary. City of Calgary gets to nominate 3 members to each board, plus indirectly the City of Calgary gets to nominate other directors because the City has significant representation other non-profit organizations like Parks Foundation, Hockey Canada, etc.

The concession revenue also gets put through a washer ownership structure so that the NHLPA only gets a limited amount for their cut. Concession revenues from NHL games are part of the revenue sharing agreement that is at the heart of the collective bargaining agreement between NHL and NHLPA.

Here is a good hypothetical example. I own the NHL team. My sister owns exclusive rights to the concession stand for $100 per game. The concessions make about $200 per game and Sister is allowed to keep anything beyond $100 per game. I charge my sister the equivalent to $50 per game to live in the basement of my house. I walk away with $150/game but only give $50 to the players under the 50/50 revenue sharing deal.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by bap1989

When I see posts like this I always wonder what better use riverfront land could have. Sure there is money to be made selling the land to condo developers but to me that ends up limiting public use of the land as evidenced by all the condos along the gated condos along the riverfront now.

Surely there won't be another commercial center if the new Eau Claire proposal ever goes ahead, so what's wrong with throwing down a big arena/stadium to draw even more people to the riverfront.

I was hoping the West Village riverfront could emulate what has been built in East Village. A large public space that integrates into the surrounding buildings. Building a stadium by the river is kind of like building a wall. Although, to be fair to you, it is a step up from what there now.