New Downtown Calgary Arena

[BlaineN]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah. Having a resident professional team only softens the blow, it doesn't make it viable. Only Toronto, Madison Square Garden in New York, and a few in the UK are going concerns which are covering their capital cost. Maybe the one in Vegas?

Let me rephrase that. Having a pro sports team doesn't make it 100% on a pure business case, but rather more viable and thus 'doable'. Not having a pro sports team or long-term anchor tenant of some sort makes it pretty much 100% non-viable and needs to be done with the public paying the entire share.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

And that is unnaccetable to me, they should pay tax like any other business.

Then they won't exist. And that is fine for you, I know. But we should acknowledge that it is not viable without a subsidy. And that without the team, Calgary taxpayers will then be liable for the ongoing maintenance of the 'Dome without a financial partner.

[BlaineN]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Then they won't exist. And that is fine for you, I know. But we should acknowledge that it is not viable without a subsidy. And that without the team, Calgary taxpayers will then be liable for the ongoing maintenance of the 'Dome without a financial partner.

That's exactly it. I don't know why people get so hung up on the building being private ownership. I'd rather the Flames owned the building and dealt with the long term future of it.

[DoubleK]

I wish the Stampede board, the City and the Flames could figure out how to coexist and find a solution that works for everyone including the taxpayers.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by BlaineN

That's exactly it. I don't know why people get so hung up on the building being private ownership. I'd rather the Flames owned the building and dealt with the long term future of it.

Right now they have a head lease, which is similar. I believe they want a new building to be similar, or else it screws with their NHL collective agreement

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I wish the Stampede board, the City and the Flames could figure out how to coexist and find a solution that works for everyone including the taxpayers.

A one third contribution from the city is around what is needed. Or maybe 25% plus the full cost of the community practice rink, and the electrical, water, sewage, and streetscaping costs. There isn't a way to get that down to zero.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Then they won't exist. And that is fine for you, I know. But we should acknowledge that it is not viable without a subsidy. And that without the team, Calgary taxpayers will then be liable for the ongoing maintenance of the 'Dome without a financial partner.

But they would have got a subsidy, $185m. And that's reasonable to me. Giving them a double subsidy of $185m + no property tax along with infrastructure is too much.

In the unlikely event the Flames do leave then sure we won't get a new arena any time soon. But I doubt we'll spend as much money maintaining the dome as the $280m with no property tax paid that the Flames wanted.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But they would have got a subsidy, $185m. And that's reasonable to me. Giving them a double subsidy of $185m + no property tax along with infrastructure is too much.

In the unlikely event the Flames do leave then sure we won't get a new arena any time soon. But I doubt we'll spend as much money maintaining the dome as the $280m with no property tax paid that the Flames wanted.

The dome is getting old. At some point in the not too distant future it will need a big investment to preserve the current use. Edmonton when they reached a similar point costed their preserve and enhance renovations at north of $250 million. And no amount of money will make the dome's roof modern concert capable. What the dome's amount is - I couldn't say. CBEC had their dome estimate for ensuring the facility could last until the end of the games at $10 million, assuming that the facility had already been vacated by the Flames and would be demolished soon after. So somewhere between $10 million and $250 million.



In the 90s the operational subsidy from the city for the Dome when the Flames were only responsible for the costs associated with the nights they used it was in the $5-7 million range (working from memory here). There were no property taxes paid then. When the arrangement was shifted to a Flames head lease, the city got to drop its cash subsidy, but due to the lease, the dome became liable for property taxes, so the city exempted it. The city ended up ahead in the deal by having no ongoing subsidy. (setting aside any initial capital costs)



Also is exempting a future arena a cost to the city? Only if the land the future facility is on has a potential commercial or residential use that is being not only displaced by the development, but eliminated entirely.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The dome is getting old. At some point in the not too distant future it will need a big investment to preserve the current use. Edmonton when they reached a similar point costed their preserve and enhance renovations at north of $250 million. And no amount of money will make the dome's roof modern concert capable. What the dome's amount is - I couldn't say. CBEC had their dome estimate for ensuring the facility could last until the end of the games at $10 million, assuming that the facility had already been vacated by the Flames and would be demolished soon after. So somewhere between $10 million and $250 million.

In the 90s the operational subsidy from the city for the Dome when the Flames were only responsible for the costs associated with the nights they used it was in the $5-7 million range (working from memory here). There were no property taxes paid then. When the arrangement was shifted to a Flames head lease, the city got to drop its cash subsidy, but due to the lease, the dome became liable for property taxes, so the city exempted it. The city ended up ahead in the deal by having no ongoing subsidy. (setting aside any initial capital costs)

Also is exempting a future arena a cost to the city? Only if the land the future facility is on has a potential commercial or residential use that is being not only displaced by the development, but eliminated entirely.

The Flames would love negotiations to start with the current agreement, but reality is, the current agreement is absolutely horrible for the City (meaning people of the city) when you consider the value of the building and the cost of the tax exemptions, balanced by the amount of revenue that the Flames take in from that building.

A 1/3rd subsidy towards the capital cost should be the extent that the city puts in to the building proper, and the Flames should not be tax exempt. There are additional costs that the city takes care of, such as all the improvements on Stampede grounds and around there, including the LRT station. The Flames are not a charitable not for profit business. They are a massive money maker, particularly when you consider what the ownership is able to rake in from leveraging the building for non-sports.

If the Flames want more dollars against capital costs from the city, the city should receive $1M rent for each non-hockey event. I mean the reality is, the owners put up hockey as the thing, but rake in the mega bucks with concerts for which they have the arena for free. That's not fair.

[MalcolmTucker]

If the arena could charge $55 plus per ticket facility fees and still sell tickets, we would have multiple competing private arenas in the city.

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the arena could charge $55 plus per ticket facility fees and still sell tickets, we would have multiple competing private arenas in the city.

Why couldn’t they charge a fee? Airport charges $35 AIF and hotels charge a fee. Why not a ticket surcharge? If users of a new are a really want it then they should be willing to pay an extra $10-15 a trip

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The dome is getting old. At some point in the not too distant future it will need a big investment to preserve the current use. Edmonton when they reached a similar point costed their preserve and enhance renovations at north of $250 million. And no amount of money will make the dome's roof modern concert capable. What the dome's amount is - I couldn't say. CBEC had their dome estimate for ensuring the facility could last until the end of the games at $10 million, assuming that the facility had already been vacated by the Flames and would be demolished soon after. So somewhere between $10 million and $250 million.



In the 90s the operational subsidy from the city for the Dome when the Flames were only responsible for the costs associated with the nights they used it was in the $5-7 million range (working from memory here). There were no property taxes paid then. When the arrangement was shifted to a Flames head lease, the city got to drop its cash subsidy, but due to the lease, the dome became liable for property taxes, so the city exempted it. The city ended up ahead in the deal by having no ongoing subsidy. (setting aside any initial capital costs)



Also is exempting a future arena a cost to the city? Only if the land the future facility is on has a potential commercial or residential use that is being not only displaced by the development, but eliminated entirely.

Well, we will have to wait and see I guess. FWIW, I do hope an agreement can be reached eventually but I expect my city to try and squeeze the best deal they possibly can out of the Flames - why wouldn't I? I still believe we have the stronger hand here, so if it takes a few more years of negotiation and the Flames bitching, then so be it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by msmariner

Why couldn’t they charge a fee? Airport charges $35 AIF and hotels charge a fee. Why not a ticket surcharge? If users of a new are a really want it then they should be willing to pay an extra $10-15 a trip

$10-15 generates around $200 million in capital spend if I remember my old math and that math was correct. A fee that generated that size of capital contribution was proposed as part of the funding model.

A much higher fee and you start to get reduced revenue due to reduced use nights and ticket sales - you’re not going to recover much more from Hitmen or Roughneck ticket sales or marginal concerts.

[Black Star]

Good news......Calgary finding another gear for downtown.



https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politic...wcm/7c1f0524-fba0-4162-8568-824c6882fedd

[suburbia]

As some will know, the Ottawa Senators owner has been pushing for a new arena combined with development deal in that city also. To do this, he partnered with Trinity Development. Like the Flames west village proposal, the Senators proposal includes massive development opportunities for the owner, with the full project being to the tune of $4B. Well, pretty touch dealing with NHL owners, it appears. Melnyk, the Senator's owner, is suing his development partner Ruddy for $700M. His development partner Ruddy, is suing Melnyk for $1B.

https://ottawacitizen.com/business/local...r-eugene-melnyk-and-developer-john-ruddy

Ruddy asserts, “Melnyk’s true aim is to have the City of Ottawa and Trinity fund and build the $500 million U.S. ($675 million Cdn.) event centre for the Ottawa Senators hockey, with the Senators getting 30 years free rent."

Interestingly, like Murray Edwards, who doesn't live in Calgary and pay tax here, the Senators' sole owner Melnyk has moved to Barbados. As another point of connection, Libin, one of the minor Flames' owners, sold the International Hotel to Melnyk not too long ago. Same sandbox I guess.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by suburbia

As some will know, the Ottawa Senators owner has been pushing for a new arena combined with development deal in that city also. To do this, he partnered with Trinity Development. Like the Flames west village proposal, the Senators proposal includes massive development opportunities for the owner, with the full project being to the tune of $4B. Well, pretty touch dealing with NHL owners, it appears. Melnyk, the Senator's owner, is suing his development partner Ruddy for $700M. His development partner Ruddy, is suing Melnyk for $1B.

https://ottawacitizen.com/business/local...r-eugene-melnyk-and-developer-john-ruddy


Interestingly, like Murray Edwards, who doesn't live in Calgary and pay tax here, the Senators' sole owner Melnyk has moved to Barbados. As another point of connection, Libin, one of the minor Flames' owners, sold the International Hotel to Melnyk not too long ago. Same sandbox I guess.

So the Sens owner wouldn’t pay a dime for the construction nor use of the proposed event centre? Wow! I hope that the Flames’ owners don’t fleece Calgary like that!!!!

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

So the Sens owner wouldn’t pay a dime for the construction nor use of the proposed event centre? Wow! I hope that the Flames’ owners don’t fleece Calgary like that!!!!

Ottawa wants to replace a perfectly good stadium that just happens to be in a not great place. And the last time they turned the screws on an ownership group it built a stadium with mostly if not all private money (no idea on tax breaks) then promptly went bankrupt.

So they have a lot of memories helping to guide their decision making.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Ottawa wants to replace a perfectly good stadium that just happens to be in a not great place. And the last time they turned the screws on an ownership group it built a stadium with mostly if not all private money (no idea on tax breaks) then promptly went bankrupt.

So they have a lot of memories helping to guide their decision making.

The location that is (was?) on the table is truly spectacular. Frankly speaking, I think our nation capital should be holding such a prime piece of land for future opportunities, rather than an arena. Anyway, curious what happens with this. I agree that Ottawa's current arena is spectacular. Just silly how it was built basically out of town with a single road out to it. I guess the view must have been that the arena would itself drive development around it, but didn't happen. Arenas on their own cannot drive development. They are only used so few hours of the year, all things considered, and traditional land planning around them, like in Ottawa, has so much tarmac that nothing actually can interact, and further, it becomes like a lake that doesn't allow flow of people or cars through it.

It is interesting how they now call all arenas event centres. Apparently at Calgary city hall, Druh asked what the difference was between an arena and an event centre, and the response was crickets. So it is just a psychological manipulation with the new words. Kind of like duplex being replaced with cool and chic semi-detached.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The location that is (was?) on the table is truly spectacular. Frankly speaking, I think our nation capital should be holding such a prime piece of land for future opportunities, rather than an arena. Anyway, curious what happens with this. I agree that Ottawa's current arena is spectacular. Just silly how it was built basically out of town with a single road out to it. I guess the view must have been that the arena would itself drive development around it, but didn't happen. Arenas on their own cannot drive development. They are only used so few hours of the year, all things considered, and traditional land planning around them, like in Ottawa, has so much tarmac that nothing actually can interact, and further, it becomes like a lake that doesn't allow flow of people or cars through it.

It is interesting how they now call all arenas event centres. Apparently at Calgary city hall, Druh asked what the difference was between an arena and an event centre, and the response was crickets. So it is just a psychological manipulation with the new words. Kind of like duplex being replaced with cool and chic semi-detached.

You kinda know what you are talking about, but not really. The arena is in Kanata, a suburb of Ottawa. Not central by any means but hardly the middle of nowhere. Development has happened around the arena, but just the standard suburban type growth. The “single road” you speak of would be the Queensway, basically the Ottawa equivalent of the Deerfoot.
The setting would be analogous to the Flames building an arena in Seton.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by PPAR

You kinda know what you are talking about, but not really. The arena is in Kanata, a suburb of Ottawa. Not central by any means but hardly the middle of nowhere. Development has happened around the arena, but just the standard suburban type growth. The “single road” you speak of would be the Queensway, basically the Ottawa equivalent of the Deerfoot.
The setting would be analogous to the Flames building an arena in Seton.

I was hosted in a box there probably 20 years ago so some things may have changed. It was in the middle of no where. You had to come in off Palladium Drive, with no alternative really. It was massively backed up. There are farms between Ottawa and Kanata, and then the arena is on the other side of Kanata. I don't think there are farms between Calgary downtown and Seton. Kanata only became part of Ottawa in 2001 and as mentioned, development is not continuous between Ottawa proper and Kanata.

In this image, the arena is halfway between Kanata and Stittsville:

Above image is "public domain" via Wikipedia
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Newottawamap.png