Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[itom 987]

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.

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.

[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?

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by osmo

If you work on this file each day then the numbers should be much easy for you to follow. The 2million attendance number represents what? The same traffic that would of gone to Northland for Oilers games, concerts, and events? Would these folks not spend money also? Studies have shown there isn't some magic increase when people decide to spend entertainment dollars, if anything they will spend less now as Oilers tickets are that much more expensive.

I go to 15-20 Oilers games a season, and before Rogers Place it was always an in/out scenario on game nights. We never went for supper before the games and never lingered afterwards. Last season was the most enjoyable by far for me as an attendee (30+ years) and a large part of it was due to Rogers and the environs (McDavid et al has something to do with it as well). Rogers and nearby businesses have done an admirable job separating me from my cash, but I'm doing it with a smile. At Rexall that money was not being spent. I cannot overstate how much Rogers was needed for the city.

[Calgarian]

So the Flames want Veto power on all development around the new arena, all the revenue, all the parking revenue, a share of Stampede parking revenue, free transit & free policing on game nights (not sure about concerts and other events there), no property tax, no rent, free land and all they have to pay is an up fron $275 million. The Taxpayer would get completely hosed by this! This is really crazy, the Flames think they are curing cancer and want to be treated like a damn church! I think I'm going to have to boycott them if this is true...

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

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

So the Flames want Veto power on all development around the new arena, all the revenue, all the parking revenue, a share of Stampede parking revenue, free transit & free policing on game nights (not sure about concerts and other events there), no property tax, no rent, free land and all they have to pay is an up fron $275 million. The Taxpayer would get completely hosed by this! This is really crazy, the Flames think they are curing cancer and want to be treated like a damn church! I think I'm going to have to boycott them if this is true...

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

Actually CSEC only wants to front $100 million and the rest of CSEC's portion is to be fronted by a loan from the CoC.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by speedog

Actually CSEC only wants to front $100 million and the rest of CSEC's portion is to be fronted by a loan from the CoC.

Yeah, forgot to mention this part. WTF Flames?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Yeah, forgot to mention this part. WTF Flames?

I have to say Ken King and his gang of thieves have completely poisoned the well and soured me going into this season.

[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.

[Coldrsx]

Exactly. The spending is an order of magnitude or three more.

You can read our report if you wish. 46% of people go out before or after a game now, i'd be that was 10-25% before.

http://www.edmontondowntown.com/about.php?sid=83

[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.

[Coldrsx]

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.

My background is Economics and I COMPLETELY agree with your initial statement. They do very little in some ways, but Oiler Entertainment Group went from something like 200 employees to multiple times that, let alone the development company that is now created to develop Ice District 1 and 2.

All together the number of residential units will be something like 4500, a few million sqft of office and a few hundred K or retail. This is all BECAUSE Rogers Place is where it is. They could not have done that at Rexall Place and it would have taken 2-3 times as long, decades in fact, to do what they are doing in 5yrs.

The arena is the anchor tenant, but the land play is where the money and transformational change is.

[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]

Nothing wrong with a City issues loan I say. City can get a better deal on the debt versus private owners so I view that as being a beneficial partnership. Also, I have no issue of the City offers land because they can acquire that much more easily versus private owners. Line up the debt and the land and then let the owners go build and pay for the rest. City can be responsible for public realm upgrades and transit and road implements as well, that to me sounds like a fair partnership between private owners and the public.

[Airboy]

The large concert catchment area makes a difference. With large concerts missing Calgary I have seen and talked to more Calgarians up here for concert. Hockey is a smaller catchment.

Most of the studies done on the economic impact are usually done on American cities. I feel that the Edmonton situation is different and will change some of the narrative of the earlier studies. Would this same plan work in Calgary, probably not. The Saddledome is not in the Hinterlands like Northlands was. And their core is much more developed. If the dome was say out near Deerfoot or further and the east Village was stalled, a new arena may have stimulated more development. ( I don't know if that is clear or coherent, Its Friday)

Finding a restaurant open after 10 pm is a lot easier than even 2 years ago. Leaving the Winspear or Citadel it is nice to go for a bite to eat after, which was not easy just a few years ago. Would this be possible without the arena, hard to say. the city was changing but after 50 years in this city there is a good change happening.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[Coldrsx]

Tada


http://cdn.skyrisecities.com


http://cdn.skyrisecities.com

[J.OT13]

What's wrong with Olympic Stadium? Why does Montreal have to build a new stadium to host an MLB team?