New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by PPAR

So in the Next proposal, do the Flames own the land? If they do, it seems to me that they will take credit from the public purse for remediation of the property, build the project, and in 40 years when the arena is at end of life, Calgary has 2.5M people and is possibly in the midst of another boom, they will cash out of a hugely valuable land investment...

The city would own the development and the land, CSEC just gets to keep pretty much all the revenue lol

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

You can't be this thick, honestly. THIS ISN'T IN THE BUDGET YET! it's a long term play as there are far too many variables that haven't been solved (obviously!). They are beginning to look at this (part of the West Village master plan), but until they figure out who pays, nothing is going to happen. The city isn't falling for the emotional baiting from the Flames (threatening to leave and getting everyone up in arms about it isn't being logical by the way, that's pulling at emotions). We need to solve this issue before we can have any discussion on CalgaryNext (this is the city's argument, sounds more like logic than emotion to me), why is that so hard to understand? I might as well debate this with the wall beside me, it will present a far more logical argument than you are lol.


Ok you really are this dumb. Council has been pretty forthcoming here, that's why they say no! If there isn't the several tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in city coffers, they can't go ahead and do it can they?

Boy some of you are quick to go into attack mode when someone doesn't agree with what you want. The City has had decades to study this problem and has done nothing. Studying the problem which could have become very serious at any time does not mean that they need to have the budget to do the cleanup. If the problem spread(s) to the river, for example, it would be wise to at least have a plan of attack. Based on what you're saying planning should come into play after ALL of the funding for a project is in place.

As for council and the administration being forthcoming you must be extremely naïve and gullible to believe that they are. They practically overnight come up with cost figures for what Calgary NEXT would cost yet when the West Village was being sold to the public they had no idea about costs for things like cleanup other than in very large ranges. The city and obviously you want the West Village to proceed as the city envisions it no matter what other proposals come forward for the area. How the City and you can claim that Calgary NEXT is an inferior project when next to no real cost/benefit analysis as been done on their own proposal shows how unforthcoming the City has been. All I've seen is a lot of assumptions and no indication that they realize the market has changed. I get that they and you are hardcore believers in density but that does not mean that is right for the area or better than Calgary NEXT or any other proposal that might be made. The City has a long track record of not wanting to support pro sports franchises and this council/administration is as bad as any in the past. Until we get a truly independent, in-depth analysis of both proposals we'll never know for sure which is best.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

"A huge hit to our quality of life". Who's using emotional arguments now? The Flames leaving wouldn't negatively affect me one bit, in fact I think my quality of life would be improved with the nonsense of that professional sport out the city. But I appreciate others place value on it, and having an arena has the side benefits like bigger/better concerts so I would support some public money being used in a way that gets the maximum public benefit, ie exactly what the city appears to be studying, not the turd sandwich of a deal the Flames/NHL want to bully us into eating.

Thanks for proving my point. The hypocrisy of this forum never ceases to amaze me.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

The city would own the development and the land, CSEC just gets to keep pretty much all the revenue lol

Where are you getting that the Flames would get to keep all of the revenue? Maybe from the sporting venues but I doubt they would get a cent from the other development unless they invest in condo/office space themselves. If the City thinks this is a bad deal then they should sit down and talk about it with the Flames instead of having the mayor throw a hissy fit because what he really wants might not get done.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

If the city contributes to an arena, can they guarantee a revenue stream while avoiding 100% ownership of a depreciating asset? Can they take revenue from non-sports-related events at the arena? Can they own and lease out street-facing CRUs or even incorporate some residential space on the corners of the lot the arena gets built on? Can they guarantee no parking at the facility, to increase curb parking and transit revenue?

I like Pennypacker's idea of incorporating a Green Line station into the block that the arena is on, as an upgrade to a transit station has benefits to all users of the service. As he said, this could contribute to a portion of the structure itself.

Could the city gather a group of developers to help finance the project by giving tax incentives (or discounted land if city-owned) to developments on brownfield land around the arena if they help with the arena's cost, thus increasing property taxes in the area? I'm specifically thinking of the Victoria Park site here.

Seems to me this whole thing requires a lot of creativity. Anything other than the city handing a billion dollars to the CSEC and getting nothing but Corndogger's temporary approval of Nenshi in return. I'm also much happier having a basic, MTS Centre style arena than a fancy arena like what is presented for CalgaryNEXT.

If you want a basic arena then you don't understand the economics behind big league sports. To me it seems like the vast majority of people against building a new arena are operating under the assumption that all seats are equal in terms of how much revenue they generate. That's clearly not true but I guess it is if you can't come up with better arguments for not building new facilities. If "basic" is good enough then we could save a ton of money on a lot of different projects. Is this what you really want? A return to the old days where the City did as little as possible in order to look financially responsible while conveniently forgetting to factor in growth, etc.? Maybe most of you are too young to know better but some of us have lived through those days. We're paying the price now for being so cheap in the past. If you want to live in a city where they do the bare minimum then Winnipeg would appear to be your dream city based on comments made daily in the MB/SK forum.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Thanks for proving my point. The hypocrisy of this forum never ceases to amaze me.

Please elaborate on how what I said is hypocritical. I feel like more hypocrisy comes from the typical numbskulls (not saying that's you, to be clear) that are opposed to any taxes, public expenditure and 'Spendshi', until it's their favourite coloured team's new corporate headquarters on the table.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Where are you getting that the Flames would get to keep all of the revenue? Maybe from the sporting venues but I doubt they would get a cent from the other development unless they invest in condo/office space themselves. If the City thinks this is a bad deal then they should sit down and talk about it with the Flames instead of having the mayor throw a hissy fit because what he really wants might not get done.

They are sitting down and talking with CSEC on a weekly basis, actually:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...an-b-1.4054189

It's also not a secret that city officials have been holding almost weekly meetings with CSEC since last fall.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Cleaning up the West Village hasn't made much sense for the City because the Downtown core has had a lot of land and old improved parcels to redevelop - plus the East Village land which weren't contaminated. It wasn't economically viable to spend millions on cleanup only to have the land sit underutilized for decades, not collecting much tax revenues to help recoup the costs.

Now with the amount of redevelopment areas Downtown shrinking, it's becoming more viable for the West Village to get remediated for development as values will be much higher and so will tax revenues that can help off-set any costs it takes to clean up the site.

The problem with Calgary NEXT is that it eats up a large chunk of land that the City cannot generate any tax revenue off of. There's not much opportunity for the City to recoup the massive costs it would take to prep the site for development (and supporting infrastructure). Also the success of the East Village is a good example of the home run potential that the West Village could be if it's done properly. I have no doubts that the City would rather go down that route for that area.

Which brings me back to my post earlier about an arena in East Vic Park north of the 'dome. It's the most sensible option for both parties to get a deal done, where there can be some sort of public benefit gained from spending public money.

[suburbia]

Jim Peplinski was on CBC Eyeopener this morning. Was introduced as a former player and member of the 1988 Canadian Olympic team. He was commentating on the NHL decision. All good - "seemingly" level headed and "seemingly" fair, with a solid double-dose of compliments for all Flames owners, listing five of them out talking about their philanthropy and being rah-rah Calgarians. Explained why NHL can't go to Olympics and it is not just the NHL but the players association and the IOC. "Seemingly" Bettman protective.

Here is the problem:

Nor the CBC and nor Jim Peplinski revealed that he is Vice-President of the Calgary Flames and his bosses are Ken King and the owners.

https://www.nhl.com/flames/team/staff-directory

VP, Business Development: Jim Peplinski

Hardly an unbiased position, and certainly a disclosure that should have been made.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Taking part of the revenue stream means taking part of the maintenance obligation, which unless the arena is way more productive than the current dome, would most likely be cash flow negative. It might sound better but it really isn't.

Wouldn't be a good thing based on the city's experience with the dome.

Didn't work out well for the city with the convention centre. Edmonton deleted similar things from rogers place to save money.

trying to build ancillary facilities on the Skydome turned into quite the boondoggle, but the office works for the air canada centre. So the mileage may vary, but I doubt it makes sense trying to fit residential building services into the limited footprint of the building. Maybe N3 type towers, but not making much money there, and have to engineer the heck out of it to stop vibrations.


Probably more expensive than keeping it distinct, but if it defrays the cost in a roundabout way, might be more palatable politically.

The way property taxes work, this is no different than cutting a cheque from property tax revenues.

Thanks for answering my questions MalcolmTucker.

Corndogger... the point you're trying to make and how you're trying to make it... ugh

[Calgarian]

Corndogger, you are so full of shit man, I don't even know where to start . Yet another fool for the ignore list.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Corndogger, you are so full of shit man, I don't even know where to start . Yet another fool for the ignore list.

You don't know where to start because nothing I said is wrong.

The real problem with this forum isn't people going off topic. It's people like you who are unwilling to see and admit that they don't know everything and that their view of the world can be wrong. Expecting everyone to have the same version of the truth shows just how immature this place can be. You're one of the worst. Of course you're going to ignore me...I don't believe in the echo chamber rules you do.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Thanks for answering my questions MalcolmTucker.

Corndogger... the point you're trying to make and how you're trying to make it... ugh

Was I too honest for you?

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Was I too honest for you?

Your honesty is what baffles me, because it reveals your lack of reason. I can visualize you foaming at the mouth while reading your posts.

A building can look plain from the outside but still offer exceptional services and seating to people who attend events there, while costing less than an architecturally advanced building. If the city contributes to an arena, I would rather that the guts of it are top-notch while saving on making it look fancy for drone footage before commercial breaks. Are you implying that if we got Calatrava to design an arena for us, event-goers would gratefully pay more to visit the blessed structure? I can only assume this is your understanding of big league sports economics.

What are you talking about when it comes to factoring in growth? Should we build an arena that can hold 100,000 people watching a hockey game? Oh wait, New York City has a much higher population and MSG has a capacity lower than the Saddledome.

That's two s for you. If I go back further I can add a hell of a lot more. Confusion abounds.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Your honesty is what baffles me, because it reveals your lack of reason. I can visualize you foaming at the mouth while reading your posts.

I think he's just baiting people into arguments for shits and giggles, so I put him on ignore.

[suburbia]

So Bettman was already getting $20M for covering transportation, accommodation and insurance costs for NHL players that would be playing in the Olympics, and the NHL would not lose any revenue whatsoever because all 82 games would still be played, but in addition, he wanted the Olympics to through in a "free" premium sponsorship so the NHL could use the Olympics logo and use coverage for their own purposes. The final add on was rejected so Bettman said FU to the whole thing, players and fans be damned.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...pute-1.4054830

[O-tacular]

Anyone else just hear Ken King's interview on the Fan960? He sure tried to walk back any threat of leaving. He even mentioned them working on a Victoria Park option. I bet the owners didn't anticipate the shitstorm they invited.

[craner]

^Just heard the last part of it. He did sound like he had his tail between his legs.

[MalcolmTucker]

The worst type of gaffe, he told the truth!

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Anyone else just hear Ken King's interview on the Fan960? He sure tried to walk back any threat of leaving. He even mentioned them working on a Victoria Park option. I bet the owners didn't anticipate the shitstorm they invited.

King really needs to stop using the media to try and get fan support for the City funding this thing ... Most people don't want their tax dollar spent on a private arena. He's not going to get the uprising against City Hall from the fans he wants.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

King really needs to stop using the media to try and get fan support for the City funding this thing ... Most people don't want their tax dollar spent on a private arena. He's not going to get the uprising against City Hall from the fans he wants.

He did desperately try to say he heard lots of support from fans as a result of the media coverage between apologizing and claiming it wasn't a threat.