New Downtown Calgary Arena

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Stamps don't sell out because they play in a dump and it's cold out and Calgarians like me are wusses

wrong, I was at the Alouettes game, perfect football weather day, and despite what the official attendance may say, 1/3 of the seats were empty the entire game.

[polishavenger]

Has anyone discussed the possibility of what happens when a flames game and a stamps game overlap? I can imagine this set up being able to handle 50k people coming and going.

It would be rare, but what a fail it would be.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I still can't get over how tone deaf the Flames ownership is. It's been said loud and clear that the public is not interested in funding their arena and the city has no tax dollars to spend. Throwing in a field house and disguising public money in the form of levies isn't fooling anyone. In a way I almost feel bad for KK as I feel he is being pushed by the likes of Murray Edwards and the rest to 'get creative' and try to sell the city and the public on funding this thing. They saw their billionaire buddy Darryl Katz get away with it so they want the same thing.

I can't say I'm surprised that a sports team is trying to squeeze as much money as they can from the general tax base. If the city doesn't give in to their demands I also expect a PR campaign from them to make it look like the city are the bad guys and don't care about sport or similar BS.

Honestly I could take or leave this proposal. Well actually I don't want anything to go ahead that doesn't reconfigure the road network, and I have no interest in subsidising the Flames. Still though it's interesting to finally see some movement.

[trueviking]

football in a convention centre.

welcome to 'world-class' multi-purpose stadium circa 1986.

neighbourhood killer not catalyst.


Calgary deserves better than this.

build a $500m arena for the flames and a proper $250m open air stadium and $80m field house somewhere else.

[nick.flood]

delete

[unibrain]

In case anyone missed the press conference.. here it is in its entirety:

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-fl...rena-1.2521605

[Beazley66]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Ridiculous. Show me one economic model that makes sense to justify having the largest hockey arena in the world.

Are you from Calgary? Just wondering. I'm not. The Bell centre is around 21k and change, and it is almost always sold out. Not sure what benchmark economic model you are working off, but the fan base here kicks . Show me what you can project , accurately, 3-5 years down the road. Show me, and I'll run it by a third party.

[Wooster]

After thinking about it much of the day after attending the announcement, here are my thoughts from my tiny brain on what we saw today:

Stadium and Arena

As a citizen and a Flames season ticket holder, I would like to see a new facility within the next ten years. I think there is benefit and there is a case to be made. Similarly on the stadium side, I think there is a rationale to replace McMahon and there is synergy in combining a field house function with a stadium.

Having the capacity of the dome roughly the same or slightly less as stated by Ken King makes sense. Making it larger is not the point.

The stadium capacity of 30,000 expandable to accommodate a grey cup or other larger events makes sense to me. I don't mind it being fully enclosed as long as the roof is translucent. The only thing worse than being outside on a freezing cold day is being inside without sunlight on a nice sunny warm day. Combining the stadium with the field house function makes sense to me and there is justification for public spending for this component (more on this below).

Overall District Design

This is where I start to have issues

First, the real point of having an arena or stadium "district" like this is to use the activity of the sporting facility to spin off other complementary uses that create a destination and gathering place in the city. KK said he didn't want a 17th avenue type thing, that's fine, but this seems to lack any sort of real place associated with the stadium and arena.

The main entry point is via Sunalta LRT station. It seems to just take people directly from the platform, onto a bridge and right inside to the stadium/arena. The thing that gets me excited about places like LA Live or Edmonton Arena district is that there is a sense of arrival in a vibrant public square with restaurants and bars and an exciting vibe. There is none of this here.

The arena/and stadium itself the way it's situated and the fact that Bow Trail is not realigned at all makes the facility isolated and isolating. The residential/commercial and other associated development is almost completely detached from the stadium/arena itself. It's completely unclear how people living in this area could even access the Sunalta LRT - there is no apparent way to actually cross Bow Trail!

The site's greatest asset, the Bow River frontage is still largely cut off and orphaned by virtue of a freeway style road that is west-bound Bow Trail. Despite cost, it is a massive mistake to leave the road configuration how it currently is. Ken King himself called it less than ideal. It is far worse than that, it's brutal. The site also sort of orphans the south side of 9th Avenue, leaving a difficult to develop roughly 60ft deep parcel along the whole stretch. If a CRL is used, they will need to squeeze every inch of developable land (and likely more) to make it pencil out financially (more on this below).

The presentation through the renderings was also terribly poor quality. I was almost certain the image that leaked last night must be a hoax. Even someone with fairly basic photoshop skills could do a better job. Perspectives are wrong, shadows are wrong, you have condo buildings touching the LRT guideway, etc. They've had 6 years - and understanding this is conceptual, they still should have had a more professional rendering.

Funding Proposal

This is where things get even tougher

$200 million cash from the owners

Quite simply, not enough in my opinion. This is an $890 million project not counting remediation. Less than 1/4 of the facility cost, and (far) less than 1/5 the overall project cost. We know the ownership group CAN afford to pay more, they just don't WANT to.

$240 million CRL

As it's been talked about before, expecting to pay back a $240 million loan through new tax revenue in this area is tough with the entire area developing out with taxable high density uses. It's made much more challenging when roughly half the land is taken up by much lower tax paying (or no tax paying uses) like a stadium/arena (the Saddledome pays on a non-market assessment of $80 million, is also exempt from business tax and provincial portion of the property tax I believe - I could be a bit off there based on my recollection - but it does not pay full freight property tax for sure.).

Also, Ken King's explanation of how a CRL works wasn't quite correct. The way it works is that you draw a boundary around an area. The existing tax base continues to flow to general City (and Provincial revenue). The notion is development couldn't occur but for public investment to enable it. It usually has to meet a definition of "blight" (East Village easily met this definition). The new tax revenue from development that couldn't otherwise occur goes to pay back the loan. The secret not many people know is that the Province also forgoes its portion of the education property tax that the City transfers to the Province.

The issue is that we are not for example competing against other jurisdictions for this kind of urban development in and around the core. There is fairly finite demand for high density residential development in and around downtown. For every building built here it means likely one less built in say the Beltline, Eau Claire (where the revenue would flow to general revenue), or worse East Village, where it is still a long way from finished and we still are exposed to debt risk as taxpayers. It may induce some demand that would otherwise not occur, but what it really does is increase the land supply of urban redevelopment sites where we currently do not lack land supply - it disperses roughly the same demand over more land area and an additional community. Without West Village, we could likely go 30 years without even coming close to running out of sites for high rise residential, hotel or office space in and around downtown. Further, in a CRL the risk is entirely the City's and taxpayer's.

Ticket Tax

It was a massive mistake in my opinion to not suggest the owners were going to backstop the loan for the ticket tax. I suppose we would assume the City would finance the ticket tax. I believe the user pay component is sound, it should absolutely be backstopped by the owners, not the City. If it is planned to be backstopped by the owners, really bad not to say that today with utmost clarity.

$200 million from City for fieldhouse

I agree there is a strong rationale to combine these facilities so it's used more than 20 days of the year. There is efficiency and synergy as KK pointed out allocating the $200m it had planned for the foothills site and redirect it here.

The challenge it is a priority project for the City, but it is unfunded. The capital funding available for 2015-18 is allocated, and it's unclear where they will fund the source of funding to allocate to this project. If NDP replace MSI with something in 2018 when the current 10 year deal (which payed for WLRT among other things) expires, there is a chance it could go to this project.

City land and facility ownership

I did find it interesting that KK suggested it be a City owned facility and remain City-owned land. The challenge is it's unclear (and seems unlikely) the City would realize any upside from ownership such as concession revenue or parking revenue. Therefore it's all just risk. If the facility has some structural issue, it's on the hook. The City it would seem assumes all the risk.

Environmental Remediation and other infrastructure

This cost is not yet pinned down, but KK suggested it should be a City/Provincial/Federal responsibility. It could be a big cost, it maybe smaller as KK suggested based on their research, but right now is a huge unknown. Again, if it's City ownership, Flames are indemnified and City takes all the risk?

There's seemingly no questions than answers at this point, but here we go - it's good it's finally open for public discussion.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by Beazley66

Are you from Calgary? Just wondering. I'm not. The Bell centre is around 21k and change, and it is almost always sold out. Not sure what benchmark economic model you are working off, but the fan base here kicks . Show me what you can project , accurately, 3-5 years down the road. Show me, and I'll run it by a third party.

The fan base here kicks!

Well, not really. The fan base here is actually rather fickle. Save for a miraculous and surprising season last year, we would likely have seen a Saddledome trending towards averaging attendance in the sub-18000 area had the Flames actually performed the way everyone thought they would last year (dead last).

Shall I also go into the rate of diminishing returns in expanding 300 level seating compared to focusing on increasing lower bowl and private suite numbers? Supply and demand models? Or again just ask why a city of only 1.3M should have the largest arena in the entire world? Larger than Toronto, New York, LA, Montreal, Chicago... Oh, and 5,000 more seats larger?

Anyone here remember the Save the Flames campaigns and a half empty barn? Let's not get carried away now.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Ridiculous. Show me one economic model that makes sense to justify having the largest hockey arena in the world.

Fun fact: More people watched hockey in the Saddledome during the 2014-2015 season than in any other building in the world (and this is true most seasons).

I mean, it doesn't necessarily justify 25K seats, but it is true.

[craner]

Very well thought out and written post Wooster. I am in agreement with much of what you say.

Just a couple of items I would like to point out:

1. I don't think fully transluscent roof panels are being proposed. I think some of the renderings looking down on the exterior of the structures have made the roof clear in order to show the interior. The interior renderings and some of the other exterior ones indicate mainly solid roof panels. In either case I worry a fixed roof will kill the atmosphere on game days (many examples of this). Please make the stadium roof retractable (funded by the Flames of course).

2. McMahon Stadium is used for much more than Stampeder football games (i.e. 20 times a year). A host of U of C teams (football, feild hockey, lacrosse, soccer) train/play there. Calgary Colts Jr. Football team, various amateur, school, community, club soccer & football teams play& practice there. In fact through spring , summer & fall it's actually difficult to find an opening in McMahon's schedule to book (I know this from first hand experience).

That's it, I'm done - just wanted to get that out there.

[jeffwhit]

Going to throw in my two cents as well.

I want this project to happen in this location as a catalyst for environmental remediation of the West Village. I do believe that should be paid for largely by the various levels of government, because even though it happened it a different era, it was lax regulations that allowed a huge swath of central Calgary to become uninhabitable. I think the Flames' need to do their part as well. I think 25% of the cost of remediation is appropriate. Ultimately I'd prefer to spend more public money on this then letting that land sit in its current state for realistically another 40 years.

I think it's exciting to have both major teams downtown. I also think the lack of focus on parking is good. Downtown Calgary contains a large number of parking spaces that are basically empty after 5pm. I would be in favour of adding a transit fee to the ticket cost and running busses from various points downtown to the games, and therefor also allowing fans to hop on the C-train and ride it from their parking spot (anywhere) to Sunalta without having to purchase an additional fair. Spreading out the parking helps alleviate huge traffic concerns.

What is disappointing is that any number of forumers here could have quite literally spent their free time putting together a similar proposal with renderings and a financial model that was more thought out, and done it in a week. What the hell have they been doing for 2 years? As Wooster pointed out the this isn't even half-baked. Lack of road realignment is completely unacceptable. Imagine a combination River Walk/plaza as one of the arrival points, with another one as an arrival point from Sunalta Station. Bow trail should be pushed as close to the CP tracks as possible.

Also, I'd like to see a Varsity Stadium scale facility remain in the same general area as McMahon/Foothills Athletic Park. Something that would require only a tiny fraction of the parking and ensure that the actual availability of such facilities in Calgary actually increases.

Then there's the issues with the funding model, which have been well covered with more expertise by others.

Personally, with all the know-how on this forum, I'd love to see what we could collectively come up with as an alternative proposal.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Ridiculous. Show me one economic model that makes sense to justify having the largest hockey arena in the world.

The Saddledome can hold 19, 289. Why are we even building another?

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by jeffwhit

What is disappointing is that any number of forumers here could have quite literally spent their free time putting together a similar proposal with renderings and a financial model that was more thought out, and done it in a week. What the hell have they been doing for 2 years? As Wooster pointed out the this isn't even half-baked. Lack of road realignment is completely unacceptable. Imagine a combination River Walk/plaza as one of the arrival points, with another one as an arrival point from Sunalta Station. Bow trail should be pushed as close to the CP tracks as possible.

That sums it up. It's like I just heard an Axl Rose comeback album.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Has anyone discussed the possibility of what happens when a flames game and a stamps game overlap? I can imagine this set up being able to handle 50k people coming and going.

It would be rare, but what a fail it would be.

There's, what, 4-ish home Stamps games Sept-Oct, and 2 possible playoff dates in November, excluding Grey Cup (which, if it were in Calgary, would be known well in advance).

Pretty sure NHL scheduling can avoid 6 days. A much smaller feat than scheduling the Rangers and Knicks into MSG!!!

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Pretty sure NHL scheduling can avoid 6 days. A much smaller feat than scheduling the Rangers and Knicks into MSG!!!

Or the Kings, Lakers and Clippers into Staples Center.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

The Saddledome can hold 19, 289. Why are we even building another?

Because a new arena designed to maximize revenue is better than an old one, even with the same number (or less) seats. It is why the Saddledome went from 20,240 seats to 19,289 when they put in more luxury suites and club seats.

With TV viewing becoming what it is there is much less benefit in building more and more seats which are far away from ice level, especially when those seats are the most expensive to build and bring in the least revenue. The ~19,000 seat range is also more advantageous with changes in demand better (quicker for ticket prices to go up, slower for them to do down) than trying to push the 20,000 mark. All the new arenas in the past decade have stayed in the 18 or 19,000 seat range, a couple even less. It's just better business.

There is also the issue of the Saddledome not being suitable for a number of major concerts due to its shape, so the 19,289 isn't even adequate to maximize the overall capacity through non-hockey events.

[Fuzz]

After thinking about it, I'm hopeful this is just a rough idea they have to get the conversation started and they are open to getting a real design process started. Basically, this is what we want to do, but have no idea if it is the best way to do it. They had to release something publicly at this point.

As for the money, I'd hope this is their starting point, not their final goal. Ask big, settle for much less.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

Because a new arena designed to maximize revenue is better than an old one, even with the same number (or less) seats.

Better for whom?

[Surrealplaces]

Agreed. I don't think scheduling will that much of an issue. Even if for some reason there are two events on at the same time...which I suspect would happen now and then given that the arena would probably have hockey games, concerts, Ice Capades etc.. They won't necessarily start or end at the same time. If they do, it's not going to happen very often.

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

There's, what, 4-ish home Stamps games Sept-Oct, and 2 possible playoff dates in November, excluding Grey Cup (which, if it were in Calgary, would be known well in advance).

Pretty sure NHL scheduling can avoid 6 days. A much smaller feat than scheduling the Rangers and Knicks into MSG!!!

Originally Posted by bt04ku

Or the Kings, Lakers and Clippers into Staples Center.