Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

How much did Toronto benefit from the Raptors NBA championship? I'm not sure how much the government paid to build the ACC, but the population rallied around the team, brought the people together and unified the population - that's just the societal benefit of building a sports stadium, not to mention the economic benefits of the city including the millions of dollars restaurants gained from such a run, and tax dollars generated from the all this extra spending... Also, the interest in the sport of basketball will completely take off from coast to coast, all thanks to Kawhi Leonard and the Raptors.

That's pretty much it. The players, coaches and executives get millions, the owners get billions, everyone else gets a hefty bill and if they're lucky, maybe some good vibes from a successful season.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

How much did Toronto benefit from the Raptors NBA championship? I'm not sure how much the government paid to build the ACC, but the population rallied around the team, brought the people together and unified the population - that's just the societal benefit of building a sports stadium, not to mention the economic benefits of the city including the millions of dollars restaurants gained from such a run, and tax dollars generated from the all this extra spending... Also, the interest in the sport of basketball will completely take off from coast to coast, all thanks to Kawhi Leonard and the Raptors.

The same can be said fro BMO stadium, with TFC championship. Not only the societal, and economic benefit it generated, I'd imagine that the interest in the sport of soccer completely took off as well.

These are just examples from Toronto of course, but the effects will be felt coast to coast, which may prompt governments in other parts of the countries to invest in sport stadiums to help grow the respective sports, bring people together, and help the economy, especially in areas around the stadium, that otherwise wouldn't benefit from the stadium.

lol at extra spending. Do you actually think there was extra spending in Toronto as a whole!? Or perhaps it was just extra spending in a few select bars and restaurants for a short period of time. OVer the course of the year, it is very unlikely there was any extra money spent at bars and restaurants in the entire CMA of Toronto.

If Toronto has bowed out in the first round of the playoffs do you actually believe that disposable income from the various folks attending the events at bars and the like would not have been spent throughout the rest of the year? Of course it would have!

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

lol at extra spending. Do you actually think there was extra spending in Toronto as a whole!? Or perhaps it was just extra spending in a few select bars and restaurants for a short period of time. OVer the course of the year, it is very unlikely there was any extra money spent at bars and restaurants in the entire CMA of Toronto.

If Toronto has bowed out in the first round of the playoffs do you actually believe that disposable income from the various folks attending the events at bars and the like would not have been spent throughout the rest of the year? Of course it would have!

LOL, of course I think there was extra spending in Toronto as a whole, and will continue to be with the added interest in the team and the brand. People will travel to TO strictly just to see the Raptors, and will be spending money at restaurants, merchandise places and other amenities...

Read the link below. First link when googling "Economic Impact of Raptors.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/rap...pact-1.5175982

"Not all of those jubilant fans are locals, either. New Zealander Ross Bradding came into Toronto with his son just to watch the local team's championship run. "We just jumped on a plane last week and came," he told CBC on Friday."

"Toronto's former city planner Jennifer Keesmaat said experiences like Bradding's — and countless others like him — are priceless for the city's status and economy over the long run."

""There's an energy we can build on," she said."

"The one-time mayoral candidate said you can't put a price on the value this playoff run has added to Toronto's prestige elsewhere, as the team's young and diverse fan base have been ambassadors for the city"

""Think about why cities pursue the Olympic games — it's because they want to shine the light on their city," Keesmaat said. "They want to show what they're capable of, they want to draw attention to the character and the quality of their city. Well, we just did that through the NBA championships. We just did that through our Raptors.""


... or you could have governments that just say Fuck No to helping fund stadiums for teams in the world's best leagues, potentially losing out on such once or twice in a lifetime events that millions of citizens likely wouldn't experience without.

Lol

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by esquire

That's pretty much it. The players, coaches and executives get millions, the owners get billions, everyone else gets a hefty bill and if they're lucky, maybe some good vibes from a successful season.

So being able to go to a sporting event, concert, etc. has nothing to do with quality of life? Take Edmonton, for example. Would an entertainment district have been built without their new arena as a catalyst? Of course not! You guys are too obsessed with hating on rich people to see that such facilities do improve quality of life.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

So being able to go to a sporting event, concert, etc. has nothing to do with quality of life? Take Edmonton, for example. Would an entertainment district have been built without their new arena as a catalyst? Of course not! You guys are too obsessed with hating on rich people to see that such facilities do improve quality of life.

So do all kinds of other publicly owned facilities and venues, like pools, libraries, community centres, museums, parks, and so on. Here in Vancouver we have the privately owned, privately paid for Rogers Arena (formerly GM Place), and the public owned, publicly paid for BC Place.

Both provide quality of life improvements for locals, at least those who can afford to go there. They also provide jobs, etc. The difference is, neither of them involved the taxpayer writing a giant check to a wealthy person or corporation who then used that money to make even more profit for themselves.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So do all kinds of other publicly owned facilities and venues, like pools, libraries, community centres, museums, parks, and so on. Here in Vancouver we have the privately owned, privately paid for Rogers Arena (formerly GM Place), and the public owned, publicly paid for BC Place.

Both provide quality of life improvements for locals, at least those who can afford to go there. They also provide jobs, etc. The difference is, neither of them involved the taxpayer writing a giant check to a wealthy person or corporation who then used that money to make even more profit for themselves.

Sure sounds like you have an issue with rich people. Also, aren't the Lions privately owned? Isn't the owner benefiting from the massive amounts of money spent on upgrading the stadium?

Arena's cost astronomically more now than they did back in the 1990s. The 2018 construction cost for Rogers Arena is $249 million. CSEC is spending more than that just for their share of the new arena in Calgary. What happened years ago is totally irrelevant to what's happening today.

[ScreamingViking]

Proponents of entertainment and sports product love to trot out the economic impacts, especially for big events.

Thing is, disposable income doesn't increase because of the ongoing activities and one-off events. So yeah, people may end of spending more on sports/entertainment and event-related stuff and that impact can be estimated... but less is spent on other things. So in the end, it's a wash.

When it comes to a national event like Grey Cup or a global event like the Olympics, the dynamic changes. Local spending is boosted from the influx of visitors and business and international attention. But at a national or global level it's still a wash -- those people and firms are not spending in their home regions.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have these activities and events though, or that we should reject building infrastructure to support sports and other forms of entertainment. What fun would that be?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

But at a national or global level it's still a wash -- those people and firms are not spending in their home regions.

It's a wash from a national perspective but not from a local perspective. And you might actually lose out if your city is not funding special events while another nearby city is.

It can be a tragedy of the commons type situation at the municipal or provincial level. It's the same with corporate welfare in general. It often is worth it for a government given the costs and benefits to the constituency, even if there is no overall benefit to humanity. Coordination is needed to avoid this trap.

[Berklon]

There have been actual studies that have proven there is very little impact a new arena/stadium or team brings to the local economy.

As was mentioned, if people aren't spending their disposable income at a new stadium - they'll spend it elsewhere anyway. The difference with a new stadium is the public actually has LESS disposable income because their footing the bill for the stadium in the first place (ie. higher taxes, etc.).

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Berklon

There have been actual studies that have proven there is very little impact a new arena/stadium or team brings to the local economy.

As was mentioned, if people aren't spending their disposable income at a new stadium - they'll spend it elsewhere anyway. The difference with a new stadium is the public actually has LESS disposable income because their footing the bill for the stadium in the first place (ie. higher taxes, etc.).

It does bring in outside dollars though. Lots of people travel to cities with sporting events and concerts. I always take the figures local tourist bureaus quote when they say a concert goer from out of town spends x amount of dollars, but they still spend money there. Since it's the city of Calgary spending the money, I don't think they care too much if the family from Red Deer spends several hundred less dollars in Red Deer because they took a weekend trip to see the Flames.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's a wash from a national perspective but not from a local perspective.

Is that not exactly what I wrote? "Local spending is boosted from the influx of visitors and business and international attention. But at a national or global level it's still a wash"

Originally Posted by someone123

And you might actually lose out if your city is not funding special events while another nearby city is.

It can be a tragedy of the commons type situation at the municipal or provincial level. It's the same with corporate welfare in general. It often is worth it for a government given the costs and benefits to the constituency, even if there is no overall benefit to humanity. Coordination is needed to avoid this trap.

"Losing out" would depend on how that funding is otherwise spent.

Totally agree about coordination being needed.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

How much did Toronto benefit from the Raptors NBA championship? I'm not sure how much the government paid to build the ACC, but the population rallied around the team, brought the people together and unified the population - that's just the societal benefit of building a sports stadium, not to mention the economic benefits of the city including the millions of dollars restaurants gained from such a run, and tax dollars generated from the all this extra spending... Also, the interest in the sport of basketball will completely take off from coast to coast, all thanks to Kawhi Leonard and the Raptors.

The same can be said fro BMO stadium, with TFC championship. Not only the societal, and economic benefit it generated, I'd imagine that the interest in the sport of soccer completely took off as well.

These are just examples from Toronto of course, but the effects will be felt coast to coast, which may prompt governments in other parts of the countries to invest in sport stadiums to help grow the respective sports, bring people together, and help the economy, especially in areas around the stadium, that otherwise wouldn't benefit from the stadium.

What economic benefit to the city? MLSE and the NBA made a small fortune on licensing merchandise. Other entertainment services had a good run with increased sales. The city and society saw very little economic benefit. The parade was a clusterfuck because the city had no extra money for it. MLSE pays for the permits, police officers and, use of NPS but, barriers would be on the city's tab.

Sports stadium are huge money losers at a time when municipalities are struggling to maintain services while balacing budgets. I love baseball. I idolize the players but, I'm not going to lose focus that It's pure entertainment value.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Sure sounds like you have an issue with rich people. Also, aren't the Lions privately owned? Isn't the owner benefiting from the massive amounts of money spent on upgrading the stadium?

Arena's cost astronomically more now than they did back in the 1990s. The 2018 construction cost for Rogers Arena is $249 million. CSEC is spending more than that just for their share of the new arena in Calgary. What happened years ago is totally irrelevant to what's happening today.

Lol yes the BC Lions are privately owned. Guess who the BC Place landlord is? Guess who gets to determine the rent the Lions pay, and keeps all of the profit from concessions inside BC Place? The same people that paid for its construction and renovation.

The rest of your argument is equally laughable.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

How much did Toronto benefit from the Raptors NBA championship? I'm not sure how much the government paid to build the ACC, but the population rallied around the team, brought the people together and unified the population - that's just the societal benefit of building a sports stadium, not to mention the economic benefits of the city including the millions of dollars restaurants gained from such a run, and tax dollars generated from the all this extra spending... Also, the interest in the sport of basketball will completely take off from coast to coast, all thanks to Kawhi Leonard and the Raptors.

The same can be said fro BMO stadium, with TFC championship. Not only the societal, and economic benefit it generated, I'd imagine that the interest in the sport of soccer completely took off as well.

These are just examples from Toronto of course, but the effects will be felt coast to coast, which may prompt governments in other parts of the countries to invest in sport stadiums to help grow the respective sports, bring people together, and help the economy, especially in areas around the stadium, that otherwise wouldn't benefit from the stadium.

The governments paid $0 to build the ACC. A private funding venture as arenas and stadiums should be. Your post supports the benefits and spin off of private investment in entertainment facilities.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Sure sounds like you have an issue with rich people. Also, aren't the Lions privately owned? Isn't the owner benefiting from the massive amounts of money spent on upgrading the stadium?

Arena's cost astronomically more now than they did back in the 1990s. The 2018 construction cost for Rogers Arena is $249 million. CSEC is spending more than that just for their share of the new arena in Calgary. What happened years ago is totally irrelevant to what's happening today.

Thats the argument, why is a rich sport team owner benefiting by increasing property tax and income tax of middle class citizens only to charge them increasingly higher ticket prices to enter the venue they're already paying for with their property or income tax.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by king10

The governments paid $0 to build the ACC. A private funding venture as arenas and stadiums should be. Your post supports the benefits and spin off of private investment in entertainment facilities.

I wasn't sure if ACC was privately or if the government did provide some funding. I tried to just use it as an example of the societal benefits that otherwise may or may not be made possible without such stadiums. I understand that Toronto is able to support such a venue privately, but what works in Toronto may or may not be able to work in other cities that have 5 times less the population than Toronto. Toronto is the 3rd largest metropolitan in North America. For example, a place like Calgary has different hurdles to conquer that Toronto otherwise may not have had to.

All I am saying is that there are benefits to the economy, society, and sporting world in general with stadiums that house teams that play in the world's best leagues of their respective sport. I completely understand the apathy for using public funds to help support the construction costs of building a stadium, but one argument is that having such world class venues helps put such respective cities on the world stage.

I am not opposed to Calgary's deal. The city will essentially fund half the construction cost of the new arena, but outright own the building. To me that's a good deal. It will help the Stampede, a major tourist attraction that sees over 1 million visitors attend, with a majority of those from places all over the country, North America, and the world. That's a huge influx of people that will spend money not only locally but surrounding areas as well.

The arena will see other major entertainment acts that would otherwise avoid the City if it were not for a new world class venue, again, attracting people from places other than the city.

That doesn't include the surrounding development that will absolutely be developed because of the anchor development, the arena. The whole area will be developed into an area that people will like to go, which as it is currently, is not a place want to. It will help with high density housing, which is certainly good for the economy, society, and the environment.

There would be the potential for other sporting events and potential teams. Perhaps a team could potentially be interested in Calgary because of the world class arena, which again will help with society, and the sport that otherwise wouldn't be attractive to people.

I'm just saying there are huge benefits for such developments, and the simple argument that the Flames are a private, for-profit entity and as such no government funding should be made available is such a narrow minded view that does not consider the spin-offs of the development. Again, the city and the citizens will inherit a $600 million dollar venue for half the price. The City always would have the potential to sell it and make a huge return on investment (though I of course don't know the specifics of the deal and that may not be possible. But regardless, they will have $600 million dollars worth of equity with only having to pay $300 million.

To each their own, everyone has valid points on this topic, and as such, none should be absolutely discounted or disregarded.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by king10

Thats the argument, why is a rich sport team owner benefiting by increasing property tax and income tax of middle class citizens only to charge them increasingly higher ticket prices to enter the venue they're already paying for with their property or income tax.

You touched on part of the issue there too, which is the increasing inaccessibility of the events in these buildings to a large part of the population.

The single mom who works as a cashier at Superstore and struggles to make ends meet basically has a sliver taken off every paycheque to help pay for a new arena. Yet even nosebleed seats for a typical Canadian NHL game (which typically start at around $75, maybe a few bucks less in Ottawa) are out of reach for her. Some might say that she won't miss those couple of cents which is fair, but tell me why the billionaires of CSEG should get to pick the pocket of people like this in the first place?

At one point NHL games were kind of a working class form of entertainment... when I was a kid, nosebleed seats were way more accessible and (in Winnipeg, at least) rang in about the same price as a movie ticket. These days, the NHL games are very expensive. The games have become a de facto replacement for the role country clubs used to serve in the old days ... it's where businesspeople and professionals hang out. Arenas are posh environments where the focus is on luxury surroundings, suites, clubs, F&B, etc. The lower bowls in particular are pretty much the domain of the top sliver of earners in the country. And that's fine, but you have to wonder why the public needs to subsidize this business.

No one would tolerate the idea of government subsidizing a golf and country club for rich dudes to hang out, eat lavish meals and drink, yet that is kind of what's going on with arenas.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by esquire

No one would tolerate the idea of government subsidizing a golf and country club for rich dudes to hang out, eat lavish meals and drink, yet that is kind of what's going on with arenas.

Exactly. These aren't libraries which are free to use.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

You touched on part of the issue there too, which is the increasing inaccessibility of the events in these buildings to a large part of the population.

The single mom who works as a cashier at Superstore and struggles to make ends meet basically has a sliver taken off every paycheque to help pay for a new arena. Yet even nosebleed seats for a typical Canadian NHL game (which typically start at around $75, maybe a few bucks less in Ottawa) are out of reach for her. Some might say that she won't miss those couple of cents which is fair, but tell me why the billionaires of CSEG should get to pick the pocket of people like this in the first place?

At one point NHL games were kind of a working class form of entertainment... when I was a kid, nosebleed seats were way more accessible and (in Winnipeg, at least) rang in about the same price as a movie ticket. These days, the NHL games are very expensive. The games have become a de facto replacement for the role country clubs used to serve in the old days ... it's where businesspeople and professionals hang out. Arenas are posh environments where the focus is on luxury surroundings, suites, clubs, F&B, etc. The lower bowls in particular are pretty much the domain of the top sliver of earners in the country. And that's fine, but you have to wonder why the public needs to subsidize this business.

No one would tolerate the idea of government subsidizing a golf and country club for rich dudes to hang out, eat lavish meals and drink, yet that is kind of what's going on with arenas.

Supply and demand. How else would you allocate tickets other than by pricing?

[Hackslack]

maybe it can be part of the deal between the city and the team. A certain number of tickets shall be allocated at a price that is affordable for those who otherwise would not be able to attend. And/or put a price cap on some seats. There has to be something that can be included in the deal to allow for more people to attend games.