Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[Coldrsx]

While some of this development would have happened either way, a significant amount of this $5bil would NOT have or taken a decade or more to get going.

Rogers Place was a strategic investment and it is paying off.

[ggopher]

Edmonton's arena appears to be working out. It cost the city a lot. But the area needed the investment.

But Calgary is in a totally different place. A new arena won't create any additional investment. The Flames are currently making a lot of money. They want to make even more money in a new building. In that case it is purely business. Therefore they can pay for a new arena. The offer from the city is reasonable.

Public sentiment is not on their side.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

While some of this development would have happened either way, a significant amount of this $5bil would NOT have or taken a decade or more to get going.

Rogers Place was a strategic investment and it is paying off.

Can you be honest for once and stop making a fool of yourself. $5 billion?!? You're acting like everything proposed with this development and every other development is under construction and can be attributed to the Ice District. There's still a chance Tower 3 will get capped.

[speedog]

What I take issue with is all the stuff coming out that says that the CoE only is paying this much when in fact the CoE is fronted over 95% of monies required to get this thing built.

Now Calgary is a totally different situation and while it's nice to finally see some information about the current proposal, I also believe that we're not hearing the whole story here either. More worriesome is McMahon as it just continues to appear to be an afterthought in all of this - Calgary is weird in this way, we'll build an expensive tunnel up at the airport which will be underutilized for years but not accommodate a better stadium or even a field house. We're good at building some big city stuff but just terrible when it comes to other stuff.

[Coldrsx]

Obviously not everything can be attributed to Rogers Place, but for transparency I am work for the Downtown Business Association and sat on the Downtown Community League for 10 yrs. Both of these positions have allowed me to meet many developers, planners and deal with most of these discussions/applications and I can certainly tell you that Rogers Place specifically changed the decision matrix for MANY of those projects. I work on this every single day and whether or not directly related to Rogers or impacted by the very real change Rogers Place has brought to Downtown Edmonton in terms of how it has made Downtown much more attractive, vibrant, interesting. There is a very real difference in how people perceive Downtown Edmonton now and the amount of attention Rogers Place has brought to our Downtown from local, regional, Provincial and international investors is not only happening, but will result in even more projects.

We are 2.5billion u/c or built since its announcement and within 5 yrs should be near 4billion with upwards of 7 billion of projects in our project listing within the Downtown boundaries.

Whether you like 'the deal' or not, whether you believe in CRLs, even if you do not patron arenas for NHL hockey... the impact is significant and has completely reframed what our Downtown is and what its future holds.

In 2014 they expected ~1.8-2.2 million visitors to Rogers Place/yr, they are closer to 2.5million for year 1 and expect this to be approaching 3million.

2.5-3million visitors to our Downtown. What is that trickle down impact?

Again, not the silver bullet, lots of work still to do in our Downtown, but you cannot deny or even honestly still say 'it is a wait and see'. It is.

This was a strategic investment with an expected return, simple as that.


www.twitter.com/calin_charles

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Obviously not everything can be attributed to Rogers Place, but for transparency I am work for the Downtown Business Association and sat on the Downtown Community League for 10 yrs. Both of these positions have allowed me to meet many developers, planners and deal with most of these discussions/applications and I can certainly tell you that Rogers Place specifically changed the decision matrix for MANY of those projects. I work on this every single day and whether or not directly related to Rogers or impacted by the very real change Rogers Place has brought to Downtown Edmonton in terms of how it has made Downtown much more attractive, vibrant, interesting. There is a very real difference in how people perceive Downtown Edmonton now and the amount of attention Rogers Place has brought to our Downtown from local, regional, Provincial and international investors is not only happening, but will result in even more projects.

We are 2.5billion u/c or built since its announcement and within 5 yrs should be near 4billion with upwards of 7 billion of projects in our project listing within the Downtown boundaries.

Whether you like 'the deal' or not, whether you believe in CRLs, even if you do not patron arenas for NHL hockey... the impact is significant and has completely reframed what our Downtown is and what its future holds.

In 2014 they expected ~1.8-2.2 million visitors to Rogers Place/yr, they are closer to 2.5million for year 1 and expect this to be approaching 3million.

2.5-3million visitors to our Downtown. What is that trickle down impact?

Again, not the silver bullet, lots of work still to do in our Downtown, but you cannot deny or even honestly still say 'it is a wait and see'. It is.

This was a strategic investment with an expected return, simple as that.


www.twitter.com/calin_charles

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.

[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

[sdimedru]

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.

Would majority of concerts still have stopped at Northlands? Yes.

Would the same money have been spent prior/post events at Northlands (hockey or concerts)? Definitely not.


Since Rogers Place, I have been out prior and post games/concerts on most occasions, where at Rexall it would have been a rare occasion due to inconvenience and lack of options. The overall spend will have definitely increased.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by sdimedru

Would majority of concerts still have stopped at Northlands? Yes.

Would the same money have been spent prior/post events at Northlands (hockey or concerts)? Definitely not.


Since Rogers Place, I have been out prior and post games/concerts on most occasions, where at Rexall it would have been a rare occasion due to inconvenience and lack of options. The overall spend will have definitely increased.

It will have increased on that night in that area, but that doesn't mean the total amount spent in the city went up. If people have disposable income, they are going to spend it, that's just how it works.

I agree totally that Rogers was a catalyst for redevelopment in the area, that seems quite obvious to me. Nothing much was happening downtown before Rogers and now the place is going gangbusters. Too bad Calgary's downtown has been going gangbusters for 20 years already, the Flames argument that the same is going to happen here just doesn't hold water.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by sdimedru

Would majority of concerts still have stopped at Northlands? Yes.

Would the same money have been spent prior/post events at Northlands (hockey or concerts)? Definitely not.


Since Rogers Place, I have been out prior and post games/concerts on most occasions, where at Rexall it would have been a rare occasion due to inconvenience and lack of options. The overall spend will have definitely increased.

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.