Stadiums & Arenas of Canada, Part 3

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by itom 987

Your comment above shows a complete lack of understanding of what was available at the time.

I am aware that there were something like 7 proposals that showed up when the City of Edmonton tower RFP was announced. One of them was to convert a company owned park on Jasper Avenue into a tower. Another wanted to demolish an old movie theatre, another one wanted to fill a small parking lot, yet another one wanted to build a 'flatiron' style skyscraper in the quarters. Another developer wanted to build a tower just east or Epcor Tower, another wanted to replace a park in front of the Hotel McDonald into a tower,. Another proposal was to build on an already existing podium (Manulife Place 2). I am very sure that all those proposals would have gave Stantec the opportunity as well.

Yes, those proposals would have happened if Katz never purchased the Oilers. We would have been left with a little change here and a little change there but nothing truly transformative. The buildings built would not have been as iconic as what is being built in the Ice District. If chosen, Manulife Place 2 would have been the tallest of them all at 600 feet.

Katz purchased two entirely undeveloped blocks, the Staples site and many other sites around Rogers Place. No other developer offered so much change to the largest hole in downtown's urban fabric. The towers proposed were all significantly larger than the ones proposed by other developers. The residences on the top half of Stantec Tower, I believe that is solely Katz doing, and I bet the same goes for the residences on top of the JW Marriott hotel. Wow, talk about bold moves... As for City of Edmonton tower, it was on the closest site to City Hall so the choice for them was obvious.

I'll take that cold bland streetscape over the black hole that was there before any day. Oh; bye the way, did you know that a restaurant called "Joey Bell Tower" was built beside the podium of Bell Tower on the opposite side of the City of Edmonton tower in that photo that Katz has nothing to do with? I'm sure you heard of it before but didn't remember, your welcome!

Yes, I've been in that Joey's. What's your point? What does that have to do with the mediocre 104 frontage?

I'm not saying there isn't some immediate net benefit from the deal made with Katz. I do think you're underscoring the cost or at least drawing conclusions that this is a success and will spur growth on top what would have happened anyways. We won't know for a few years yet.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Yes, I've been in that Joey's. What's your point? What does that have to do with the mediocre 104 frontage?

I'm not saying there isn't some immediate net benefit from the deal made with Katz. I do think you're underscoring the cost or at least drawing conclusions that this is a success and will spur growth on top what would have happened anyways. We won't know for a few years yet.

To add:


I'd prefer if Liberty Village in Toronto was still a bunch of derelict warehouses with all the development potential in the world than the current community of 5000. Not to confuse sensitive minds here. The Ice District is infinitive better than Liberty Village. It still had potential to be so much more than it's bland, corporate look that doesn't at all live up to it's hype.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by itom 987

240glt, I would totally agree with you if the deal consisted of only the arena itself. But the fact that Katz has helped build Stantec Tower, JW Marriott hotel, City of Edmonton tower and the Ice District means he has been living up to his side of the deal. Will the deal make Katz a lot of money? It looks like it, but Katz has taken on lot of risk as well. Lets be honest here, most developers don't have the guts do what Katz is doing in a place like Edmonton.

That's all fine & good but it still doesn't change the fact that the arena was in large part financed by taxpayers.

The ice district buildings aren't generating any money from the CRL yet but of course they will in time, but I'd consider the backroom deal to move the city offices to the Katz tower not such a good deal for the city. Aside for the lack of transparency in the deal, the resulting spike in downtown vacancy has dropped the value of adjacent properties by as much as 20%, and of course that directly affects CRL revenue. Now hopefully that's temporary, but the fact is that the way the deal was structured, the primary goal was to inject some desperately needed life into the downtown, not to get the best deal for Edmontonians.

[itom 987]

Here is a little reminder of what Edmonton is getting out of the deal.

There used to be a suburban style Staples store and surface parking lots in this photo.
September 30, 2017 by Thomas Huizinga, on Flickr

[speedog]

Originally Posted by itom 987

Here is a little reminder of what Edmonton is getting out of the deal.

There used to be a suburban style Staples store and surface parking lots in this photo.
September 30, 2017 by Thomas Huizinga, on Flickr

So will there be a CRL to help out these some 320,000 square feet of surface lots - link? Don't get me wrong here as I think it's wonderful that Edmonton has a new arena and a bunch of new development around that arena but Edmonton does have a plethora of surface level parking lots in other areas of it's downtown that do not appear to have any development slated for them.

Now that's not to say that Calgary does not have surface lots either but there isn't an area large enough that's currently surface parking in downtown Calgary that will accommodate just an arena. South of downtown in Victoria Park and on the Stampede grounds, yes, as well as the West Village area but actually downtown, no.

[itom 987]

That is why Calgary's situation is different and should not be looking at Edmonton for answers. The massive parking lots where the Ice District is used to be the worst area for surface parking lots in downtown. Now the worst area is next to Jasper Avenue where Boston Pizza is (the parking lot in your link), and yes, there are plans to develop some of those parking lots. There is also plans to convert a some of it into another a park. I don't think the CRL extends that far away from the Ice District but I could be wrong.

[Oilkountry]

Katz used the citys money to leverage his franchises profitability. In the end he will see a return but let's stop acting like he got an arena handed to him. $125 million ticket surcharge is potential revenue that he will directly lose out on. He could be pocketing that cash in ticket increases. $137.81 million from lease revenue is an annual payment that the oilers will have to pay, Profitable or not. $23.68 million is petty change to darryl katz but is probably multiple years of concert profits.

In the end The Arena will Be paid for and the city of Edmonton will only be on the Hook for the taxes from the arena and COE building, and will eventually see a return on the project. The Oilers definitely paid a large chunk of that arena cost although they didnt finance it. The CRL worked this time...and that's only phase 1 of ice district thus far.

long term...Win Win

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

Katz used the citys money to leverage his franchises profitability. In the end he will see a return but let's stop acting like he got an arena handed to him. $125 million ticket surcharge is potential revenue that he will directly lose out on. He could be pocketing that cash in ticket increases. $137.81 million from lease revenue is an annual payment that the oilers will have to pay, Profitable or not. $23.68 million is petty change to darryl katz but is probably multiple years of concert profits.

In the end The Arena will Be paid for and the city of Edmonton will only be on the Hook for the taxes from the arena and COE building, and will eventually see a return on the project. The Oilers definitely paid a large chunk of that arena cost although they didnt finance it. The CRL worked this time...and that's only phase 1 of ice district thus far.

long term...Win Win

We do not know if the CRL worked yet. Waaaaay too early to say at this point.

[FFX-ME]

I think it's now time for Acajack to post a clever thematic youtube video here to cut the tension, lol.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I think it's now time for Acajack to post a clever thematic youtube video here to cut the tension, lol.

Am I actually known for doing this on here? Oooh the pressure now!

[cjones2451]

Not surprisingly, Ottawa and Regina are out of contention as host cities

http://www.canadasoccer.com/united-b...1183-preview-1

Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal left for Canada

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Not surprisingly, Ottawa and Regina are out of contention as host cities

http://www.canadasoccer.com/united-b...1183-preview-1

Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal left for Canada

As expected I'd say.

[Vixx]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Not surprisingly, Ottawa and Regina are out of contention as host cities

http://www.canadasoccer.com/united-b...1183-preview-1

Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal left for Canada

Expected, but still disappointed to hear Ottawa is going to be left out. TD Place is a nice stadium and the atmosphere would've been awesome, oh well.

With that being said, all 4 remaining cities would be awesome hosts as well and strike a nice balance across the country.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by Vixx

Expected, but still disappointed to hear Ottawa is going to be left out. TD Place is a nice stadium and the atmosphere would've been awesome, oh well.

With that being said, all 4 remaining cities would be awesome hosts as well and strike a nice balance across the country.

The last time Ottawa hosted a world cup at TD place this had to happen...

• Video Link

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Not surprisingly, Ottawa and Regina are out of contention as host cities

http://www.canadasoccer.com/united-b...1183-preview-1

Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal left for Canada

I'm surprised Mexico only has 3 cities, that seems small given the large population and the popularity of soccer over there.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by le calmar

I'm surprised Mexico only has 3 cities, that seems small given the large population and the popularity of soccer over there.

I am pretty sure they have only submitted three cities because they're being realistic. The Americans will get most of the games. There probably won't be enough games awarded to Mexico to justify more than three host cities.

I am not in the know but I am not sure Canada will get enough games to justify four host cities. But maybe we will.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by le calmar

I'm surprised Mexico only has 3 cities, that seems small given the large population and the popularity of soccer over there.

It's a US-based World Cup featuring Mexico and Canada on the side.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am pretty sure they have only submitted three cities because they're being realistic. The Americans will get most of the games. There probably won't be enough games awarded to Mexico to justify more than three host cities.

I am not in the know but I am not sure Canada will get enough games to justify four host cities. But maybe we will.

I don't see how it makes sense for Canada to have four to Mexico's three if they're getting the same number of matches. They're both playing second-fiddle to the US regardless.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Not surprisingly, Ottawa and Regina are out of contention as host cities, Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal left for Canada

So the four cities are just still in the running and none are a given if I interpret this correctly. Also there has yet to be a statement AFAIK that a host country will automatically qualify, as in the past, which would be kind of a drag if we hosted and didn't have a team there.

Just to put some of this into perspective here is how the tournament will go, I think

The tournament will open with a group stage consisting of 16 groups of three teams, with the top two teams progressing from each group to a knockout tournament starting with a round of 32 teams.

The number of games played overall will increase from 64 to 80, but the number of games played by finalists remains at seven, the same as with 32 teams, except that one group match will be replaced by a knockout match.

The tournament will also be completed within 32 days, same as previous 32-team tournaments.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by elly63

Just to put some of this into perspective here is how the tournament will go, I think

The tournament will open with a group stage consisting of 16 groups of three teams, with the top two teams progressing from each group to a knockout tournament starting with a round of 32 teams.

The number of games played overall will increase from 64 to 80, but the number of games played by finalists remains at seven, the same as with 32 teams, except that one group match will be replaced by a knockout match.

The tournament will also be completed within 32 days, same as previous 32-team tournaments.

You've taken this verbatim from the Wikipedia article on the 2026 World Cup.

Originally Posted by elly63

Mexico and Canada are each getting 10 games

If this is the case then it's basically six group games, two R32, and two R16 matches that the host team count potentially qualify for. The host country would have two host country group games, plus four other group games from the same group and nearby groups.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Not surprisingly, Ottawa and Regina are out of contention as host cities

http://www.canadasoccer.com/united-b...1183-preview-1

Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal left for Canada

Yeah, those were just vanity bids. Never really had a shot given the shortcomings relative to other cities - stadium size, lack of transit, small airports with few direct connections, lack of hotel rooms.