Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[Acajack]

Just wanted to say that what the Edmonton people are saying about the arena's impact on their downtown makes a lot of sense to me.

[O-tacular]

The Flames can't use the same arguments as Edmonton. They are smack dab in the middle of Victoria Park and the Stampede grounds which CMLC is already ramping up to help redevelop. They strike me as lazy and entitled and not that intelligent if they think Calgarians will buy the line that we need to be more like Edmonton.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Originally Posted by Berklon

It's been proven time and time again that arenas/stadiums offer very little boost to the local economy. I've heard anecdotal evidence many many times, and in those same cities it's been disproved. I've also seen report after report spinning it in the best possible light - it's a lie.

I guess "this time it's different" for Edmonton - which is what I hear every time a new arena/stadium is built.

It's amazing how people fall for the same con they've seen someone else fell for. I guess it's too easy to learn that lesson from other cities so they have to learn it for themselves.

Living in Edmonton I can only say that "This time is very different". Lots of cities have undertaken similar arena developments with the hope that the arena will spur on surrounding developments. Took a number of years for LA Live to reach its full potential. Other cities got nothing to show for it. In Edmonton, I only need to look out my window from midway up the MNP tower to see the brand new Edmonton tower and the Stantec and Marriot towers reaching for the sky and the residential tower slowly reaching grade not far behind.

I agree with sentiments of others here who have said that the attitude has changed in terms of dining out before and after the events at Roger's Place. I can see that every time I leave my office on game nights and walk by all the packed bars and restaurants.

There will always be an argument of just how much incremental change has happened but I think there has been a somewhat substantial change toward the plus side of the argument.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by itom 987

You need to think of the economy within the city, not from outside. Before Rogers Place, Edmonton was considered a donut style city where all the economic activity was happening on the outer edges. Good examples of donut cities are rust belt cities such as Detroit, Buffallo, Niagara Falls NY, etc. Cities that have a donut style economy aren't considered to be healthy. Rogers Place is changing the donut, the centre is filling up and the outer edges are getting thinner, accelerating Edmonton's path towards a healthy city.

Really now? Edmonton is Detroit?

Edmonton is far more urban and healthy than any decayed rust belt city. The Edmpnton core has been coming along strong for many years now. All the Arena did was focus and shift activity but there are two sides that will tell you that this activity would of already taken place. Far too many people put too much faith in a hockey rink.

Here in Toronto, aside from the condos MLSE built themselves I can't think of any project that was spurred purely because of the ACC. ACC helps out the bars and restaurants of course but if they are any good will be busy regardless because of the activity around it. Oddly, Real Sports Bar is very busy game day or not if there is big games on. The South Core area would be just fine minus the ACC as Union Station is the big anchor there and not the actual arena.

This isn't saying sports venues do nothing, but folks maybe over estimate how much impact they do have.

I don't like to look at the success of cities for how many Moxies and St Louis Wild Wings they throw around arenas - such minor stuff in the big picture of a cities economy. Let's talk about Convections and Trade Shows that really bring in dollars into local economies.

If anything, Canada has the best examples as Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal were all very early in the stadium boom. All the mentioned markets have mature arenas and in all cases nobody can claim that the activity that has resulted, wouldn't of happened with the arena or not minus specific development plays that were done by the hockey ownership groups.

[Vixx]

I don't dispute what the numbers say; in the vast majority of cases, taxpayers subsidizing arenas is a giant hole burned in city pockets with little development and growth resulting from new arenas. But sometimes a city has to throw a Hail Mary, Edmonton did and its starting to pay off.

Look, Katz got the best deal of all parties involved when the Ice District was under negotiation. As much as Katz is a greedy dickhead, it's hard to argue he didn't/doesn't want his hometown to experience a downtown rejuvenation. You can tell he loves the city, he just so happens to be making a pretty penny. The city is not going to go broke and while they aren't clear "winners" on paper, the city for the first time in forever is seeing mass construction in it's downtown core all in one go. Yes Edmonton was/is experiencing rapid growth prior to the Ice District commencing construction, but to say all this development and rejuvenation would've occurred regardless is being naive. VERY few cities experience this rapid a transformation in one go and on the scale that it is. If you live or have gone to Edmonton recently, you can easily tell people actually go out of their way to go downtown now. Are people spending more? No, but the concentration of peoples disposable income has shifted and is now concentrated in the core, which is a good thing.

Calgary is in a very different situation for reasons that many have pointed out. It's not fair for King to point to Edmonton as an example; as close as the two cities are to each other, in this scenario, there is very little comparison to be made. Anyway my opinion is, the city was desperate for some investment and development downtown, they bit the bullet a bit in their deal with Katz but it's paying off and I think most Edmontonians would agree with that.

[itom 987]

I think there is a misconception that a single venue will revitalize an area, they do but we hardly notice it. If we were to isolate Rogers Place would downtown revitalization happen? Not much. If we were to isolate Edmonton Tower would revitalization happen? No much... Revitalization is only noticeable when a number of new venues are built in conjunction with each other. In Edmonton's case it was not just Rogers Place, but also City of Edmonton Tower, Stantec Tower, New Casino, MacEwan University expansion, Norquest College expansion, Royal Alberta Museum, new LRT, new residential towers on 104th street etc. that all happened at the same time to achieve noticeable revitalization.

Surprisingly, only half of the projects mentioned above are finished and we already notice revitalization!

[WhipperSnapper]

Wasn't Stantec looking for downtown space anyways? Isn't it the same for the CofE? Apartments would have being built too. Downtown Edmonton still would have seen a billion or two worth of construction over the past five years free and clear to the taxpayers.

Tower 3 will be a good indicator in the coming months on the success of the ICE District. Of course, it will take years for everything to play out. Pre sale numbers tell nothing. They are easily manipulated.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by itom 987

I think there is a misconception that a single venue will revitalize an area, they do but we hardly notice it. If we were to isolate Rogers Place would downtown revitalization happen? Not much. If we were to isolate Edmonton Tower would revitalization happen? No much... Revitalization is only noticeable when a number of new venues are built in conjunction with each other. In Edmonton's case it was not just Rogers Place, but also City of Edmonton Tower, Stantec Tower, New Casino, MacEwan University expansion, Norquest College expansion, Royal Alberta Museum, new LRT, new residential towers on 104th street etc. that all happened at the same time to achieve noticeable revitalization.

Surprisingly, only half of the projects mentioned above are finished and we already notice revitalization!

I guess that would be like the East Village in Calgary although an arena deal wasn't needed to get that done.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by osmo

Really now? Edmonton is Detroit?

Edmonton is far more urban and healthy than any decayed rust belt city. The Edmpnton core has been coming along strong for many years now. All the Arena did was focus and shift activity but there are two sides that will tell you that this activity would of already taken place. Far too many people put too much faith in a hockey rink.

Here in Toronto, aside from the condos MLSE built themselves I can't think of any project that was spurred purely because of the ACC. ACC helps out the bars and restaurants of course but if they are any good will be busy regardless because of the activity around it. Oddly, Real Sports Bar is very busy game day or not if there is big games on. The South Core area would be just fine minus the ACC as Union Station is the big anchor there and not the actual arena.

This isn't saying sports venues do nothing, but folks maybe over estimate how much impact they do have.

I don't like to look at the success of cities for how many Moxies and St Louis Wild Wings they throw around arenas - such minor stuff in the big picture of a cities economy. Let's talk about Convections and Trade Shows that really bring in dollars into local economies.

If anything, Canada has the best examples as Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal were all very early in the stadium boom. All the mentioned markets have mature arenas and in all cases nobody can claim that the activity that has resulted, wouldn't of happened with the arena or not minus specific development plays that were done by the hockey ownership groups.

Those three cities are the prime downtowns in Canada which Edmonton is not. The downtown arenas were a plus but they would have continued chugging along even if their NHL teams had decamped to the burbs.

Look at Ottawa. The Sens being in the burbs hurts the Sens more than it does Ottawa's downtown.

Edmonton is definitely different from these four cities and the boost from Rogers Place is giving downtown an injection of life that was more than welcome.

Saying that DT Edmonton is not DT Detroit doesn"t mean it is DT Montréal or Toronto.

[thurmas]

New Expos ballpark on the Horizon in Montreal?

https://globalnews.ca/news/3757342/m...ng-considered/

[sdimedru]

Originally Posted by osmo

Your entertainment money is capped, you are spending the same dollars on entertainment as you normally would. How man people are bleeding themselves into debt for dinner and shows just because of a new arena?

The new car smell is still fresh but once things settle in routines will be had just as usual. You will spend your typical amounts for tickets, food, entertainment as normal. This isn't to say that Rogers Arena vicinity facilities won't do well, but this is just a shift from other various options folks were entertaining at before.

This is what the studies illustrate as new arena don't create any new demand. This isn't like a sun belt facility that is bringing in new events like Final Four, Super Bowls, NCAA FCS, etc that would be a net gain to the tourism and entertainment scene. The same typically events are still taking place in Edmonton. Edmonton isn't different. This model has been tried in countless cities with the same result.

I have no background in economics so won't argue with those with the background, but I can't find myself agreeing with the bolded?

I can get the concept that, for example, my household had $500 to spend per month on entertainment, a new arena doesn't change that.

But I'm suggesting that I was only spending $200 of that prior to Rogers Place, and now it may be closer to $400 and centralized around the Arena... doesn't that register as a positive impact as a result of the new Arena?

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by sdimedru

I have no background in economics so won't argue with those with the background, but I can't find myself agreeing with the bolded?

I can get the concept that, for example, my household had $500 to spend per month on entertainment, a new arena doesn't change that.

But I'm suggesting that I was only spending $200 of that prior to Rogers Place, and now it may be closer to $400 and centralized around the Arena... doesn't that register as a positive impact as a result of the new Arena?

It depends. Were you saving the excess $300 previously or just spending it on something else? If the overall spend is the same, the net economic impact to Edmonton is approximately equal whether you spend that money on entertainment, groceries, restaurants, clothes, etc. If you are now saving less, then yes, economic activity has increased in Edmonton, but at the cost of your future savings total (and there are other indirect impacts re: investing/capital gains/dividends/future spending/etc).

The only way Edmonton really comes out ahead from an individual spending perspective is if a lot of out of towners now come into the city, and the only way Alberta gains is if out of province visitors increase. Otherwise, spending is spending whatever it's on... though Alberta having no PST changes the normal "calculation" that could be done in other regions.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by thurmas

New Expos ballpark on the Horizon in Montreal?

https://globalnews.ca/news/3757342/m...ng-considered/

No price tag in the article?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by thurmas

New Expos ballpark on the Horizon in Montreal?

https://globalnews.ca/news/3757342/m...ng-considered/

So, we have an expensive stadium that already sits unused and needs fixing. The solution is to build another that will sit unused until it needs fixing.

The MLB isn't coming back to Montreal.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by wave46

The MLB isn't coming back to Montreal.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by JHikka

No price tag in the article?

I don't think the Bronfman's or anybody they chose to pair up with are hurtin' for cash.

[O-tacular]

From the Calgary arena thread:

Originally Posted by Socguy

Opps! Metro is reporting that the Flames didn't include all that they were asking for in their disclosure to the public: They also wanted a veto on Vic park developments along with a cut of Stampede parking revenue!

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...g-revenue.html

"The city’s proposal is just not workable (or even for that matter ’fair’) based on other arena deals in comparable cities,” King said.

And there it is! We want what Katz got! Wwwaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by elly63

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

I agree. I think MLB could make a return to Montreal with a proper ballpark. Just make sure that they are in the AL with Toronto so that the natural rivalry with Toronto (and Boston) can flourish.

[Coldrsx]

Tada


http://cdn.skyrisecities.com


http://cdn.skyrisecities.com

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I agree. I think MLB could make a return to Montreal with a proper ballpark. Just make sure that they are in the AL with Toronto so that the natural rivalry with Toronto (and Boston) can flourish.

Yes, put them in the AL East and Vancouver in the AL West.