Regina | New Mosaic Stadium

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Spongebob

Interesting article. The Federal Tories are feeling the heat from Quebec City to contribute to their rink. Harper needs Quebec to deliver a majority government this year. I think if Quebec had one quarter the business plan for a new rink that Saskatchewan has for a stadium, Quebec would have already had a new rink built.

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/there...719/story.html

That's probably true. It kind of makes me jealous of Quebec how well their federal representatives push their causes... our's tend to sind on their hands, whisper some encouragement, and shrug their shoulders a lot.

[Migs]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...-sports-scheme

Harper risking backlash in cash-for-sports scheme

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTTAWA—The Harper government is leaning toward pouring millions of dollars into an NHL-calibre arena in Quebec City despite the political risks of using taxpayers' money to support millionaire hockey players.

The Conservatives are signalling their willingness to pick up part of the tab for the politically popular project in Quebec from an unused $1.25 billion federal fund.

That could open the way for Ottawa's support for similar projects across the country.

Saskatchewan wants help building a $430 million domed stadium in Regina for the CFL's Roughriders and Hamilton is trying to put together a $154 million renovation of fabled Ivor Wynne Stadium to keep the Tiger-Cats in town. Calgary may be looking for help before long to replace the 28-year-old home of the NHL's Flames.

The government's inclination to use public money for pro rinks and stadiums at a time of record budget deficits is expected to spark tough questions in Parliament when MPs return here Monday from their winter break.

The most likely source of immediate funding for new rinks or stadiums is the P3 Canada Fund, set up as a Crown corporation in 2008.

It is sitting on nearly $1 billion in federal money that has already been allocated in the federal budget, meaning the Conservatives would not have to earmark new money for Regina or Quebec City.

But its mandate does not cover stadiums devoted mainly to pro sports, so using that pot of cash would require the government to skirt the P3 fund's rules somehow.

Harper's condition for throwing in federal cash for the $400 million Quebec facility is that the provincial government and private backers also contribute a hefty share of the cost of the facility.

But any federal backing for the Quebec City venue would be a glaring about-face for Harper. In 2000, he blasted the Liberals when then-industry minister John Manley sought financial help for the Ottawa Senators and other Canadian NHL teams.

Harper, who was president of the National Citizens' Coalition at the time, dubbed Manley's move “a puck in the face for Canadian taxpayers.”

“Canadians are being forced to subsidize millionaire hockey team owners and that's a misconduct,” Harper said then.

But it's no secret the Conservative minority government is eager to beef up support in Quebec, where it holds 11 seats, in advance of a possible election this year. And enabling a new NHL-quality arena would be a highly popular move since it's essential to Quebec City's hopes of bringing back the Quebec Nordiques, who left for Denver in 1995.

It's well known in federal circles that the Conservatives are looking for a way to back the Quebec project even though it means opening up Ottawa to demands for money from cities across the country that want better arenas and stadiums.

Public funding for pro sports venues has traditionally been a tricky issue and pollster Nick Nanos said the Conservatives could “absolutely” face a public backlash if they adopt such a policy.

“Outside of whatever city is the recipient of the funding, it's not politically popular,” Nanos said. Even some Conservatives would see support for pro sports stadiums as a “distraction” from the government's focus on boosting the economy and Harper's poll standings typically fall “when the government gets diverted from core issues,” he added.

Both the Liberals and NDP are against taxpayer support for pro sports.

“No public subsidies for the National Hockey League, no public subsidies for millionaires,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said recently.

But the opposition parties and the government appear willing to make exceptions if new sports venues can be sold as multi-functional community sites that include amateur sports as well as cultural events and trade shows.

And the funds will have to be available to every city that could make a good case, party leaders say. “It's got to be fairly accessible right across the country,” the NDP's Jack Layton said recently. “We can't do these one-offs.”

The possibility of federal cash for rinks will add new fuel to what is likely to be an angry clash in Parliament starting Monday over Conservative spending. The immediate flashpoint will be the government's plan to continue with $6 billion in corporate income tax cuts next year at a time when Ottawa is running record combined budget deficits equalling $101 billion over two years.

Opposition parties say the cuts should be cancelled and the money used to help middle-class families. But the government argues that corporate tax cuts spur job creation.

[Rottie]

Calgary is looking to replace it's hockey arena and it's only 28 years old. What happens to the Saddledome after half a billion is put into the new one? If the city can't afford 2 NHL rinks, a perfectly good arena gets bulldozed. I am all for the feds contributing to arenas and stadiums but these structures have to last longer than 28 years. Any CFL stadium reno or new build is going to be around until they crumble.

[RTD]

Originally Posted by Chaps

The fault is nobody's but Asper's. There was nothing stopping them from applying to the same P3 fund.

The government isn't just going to go around giving it out because it's there. You have to apply to get it...just like anything in life. You don't apply, you don't get it.

Well, Asper's are gone. And despite having started construction, I'll bet that if Winnipeg whine's and cry's loud enough, like Quebec City and Regina, I'm that not only us, but other cities with arenas/stadium on the future will get our fair share of funding as well.

[Welkin]

INDIANAPOLIS -- The head of the Indianapolis Capital Improvement Broad said Friday that if a deal isn't reached on a $47 million bailout bill it's possible Lucas Oil Stadium may close.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill Thursday that would raise several taxes, including those on alcohol statewide, restaurant meals and hotel stays in Marion County and tickets to sporting events in Indianapolis to bail out the organization that manages the city's professional sports facilities.

But the measure faces a tough fight on the Senate floor from lawmakers from the edges of the state who feel they're being asked to bail out Indianapolis.

CIB President Bob Grand said Friday that the organization won't have many choices if the Legislature doesn't approve the bill.

"If you want me to give you worst-cases, I mean the worst-case scenario is we could be out of money and the facilities would be, arguably, closed," he told 6News' Norman Cox.

The largest part of the CIB's deficit comes from the higher-than-expected operating costs for Lucas Oil Stadium.

The previous board, appointed by then-Mayor Bart Peterson, didn't budget enough money, at least partly because it didn't know how much operating the new stadium would cost.


Lets hope this scenario does not happen in Regina, but don't be surprised if it does. These multi-purpose entertainment facilities cost a lot of money to operate and maintain. Once you build it, you have to keep feeding the monster.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Migs

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...-sports-scheme

This all so much bull. The feds and everyone else knew full well that once the day after the Olympics in Montreal and Calgary were over, that the Als and Flames would be playing in those venues. When federal dollars went to building Commonwealth Stadium and BC place (for Commonwealth and Expo respectfully) it was a given that the Eskimos, Lions and Whitecaps would play there as well. And don't get me started on the billions spent over the years for art galleries and concert halls built across this country to enable professional artists to hone and display their talents. The dripping hypocracy of all the nay-sayers makes me want to puke.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

This all so much bull. The feds and everyone else knew full well that once the day after the Olympics in Montreal and Calgary were over, that the Als and Flames would be playing in those venues. When federal dollars went to building Commonwealth Stadium and BC place (for Commonwealth and Expo respectfully) it was a given that the Eskimos, Lions and Whitecaps would play there as well. And don't get me started on the billions spent over the years for art galleries and concert halls built across this country to enable professional artists to hone and display their talents. The dripping hypocracy of all the nay-sayers makes me want to puke.

Yup, I couldn't agree more. Why are there so many American programs with professional actors on the CBC network? How many millionaire artists display their works at govt funded galleries? The list goes on and on, and it makes me sick when they use the prosports analogy when in truth most pro CFL players make no more than the average plumber.

[thefourthtower]

Originally Posted by Welkin

INDIANAPOLIS -- The head of the Indianapolis Capital Improvement Broad said Friday that if a deal isn't reached on a $47 million bailout bill it's possible Lucas Oil Stadium may close.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill Thursday that would raise several taxes, including those on alcohol statewide, restaurant meals and hotel stays in Marion County and tickets to sporting events in Indianapolis to bail out the organization that manages the city's professional sports facilities.

But the measure faces a tough fight on the Senate floor from lawmakers from the edges of the state who feel they're being asked to bail out Indianapolis.

CIB President Bob Grand said Friday that the organization won't have many choices if the Legislature doesn't approve the bill.

"If you want me to give you worst-cases, I mean the worst-case scenario is we could be out of money and the facilities would be, arguably, closed," he told 6News' Norman Cox.

The largest part of the CIB's deficit comes from the higher-than-expected operating costs for Lucas Oil Stadium.

The previous board, appointed by then-Mayor Bart Peterson, didn't budget enough money, at least partly because it didn't know how much operating the new stadium would cost.


Lets hope this scenario does not happen in Regina, but don't be surprised if it does. These multi-purpose entertainment facilities cost a lot of money to operate and maintain. Once you build it, you have to keep feeding the monster.

monster feeding at its best also a very good pot stirrer for no no reason but hatred of another city

[thefourthtower]

Originally Posted by Welkin

INDIANAPOLIS -- The head of the Indianapolis Capital Improvement Broad said Friday that if a deal isn't reached on a $47 million bailout bill it's possible Lucas Oil Stadium may close.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill Thursday that would raise several taxes, including those on alcohol statewide, restaurant meals and hotel stays in Marion County and tickets to sporting events in Indianapolis to bail out the organization that manages the city's professional sports facilities.

But the measure faces a tough fight on the Senate floor from lawmakers from the edges of the state who feel they're being asked to bail out Indianapolis.

CIB President Bob Grand said Friday that the organization won't have many choices if the Legislature doesn't approve the bill.

"If you want me to give you worst-cases, I mean the worst-case scenario is we could be out of money and the facilities would be, arguably, closed," he told 6News' Norman Cox.

The largest part of the CIB's deficit comes from the higher-than-expected operating costs for Lucas Oil Stadium.

The previous board, appointed by then-Mayor Bart Peterson, didn't budget enough money, at least partly because it didn't know how much operating the new stadium would cost.


Lets hope this scenario does not happen in Regina, but don't be surprised if it does. These multi-purpose entertainment facilities cost a lot of money to operate and maintain. Once you build it, you have to keep feeding the monster.

it looks like this is going to be built

[thefourthtower]

Originally Posted by Migs

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...-sports-scheme

a renewal of a downtown

[A4Regina]

Found this on Reed Construction Data:

Project OverviewName: RECREATION BLDG: Mosaic Stadium
Location: Division No 6 County, Saskatchewan
Phase: Planning Phase
Building Type: Recreational bldgs
Stage: Contemplated
Work Type: New
Plans & Specs: Available
Status: Last Updated 2011-01-27

Project Description:proposed construction of a new stadium with a retractable roof.

Estimated Value: $430,000,000

[Migs]

Looks like Mandryk is finally starting to 'get it'. I've been saying it all along that this is more than just a stadium project.

Taylor Field redevelopment could help fund new stadium

Maybe the problem with this whole stadiumfunding issue isn't that we've been thinking too big.

Maybe the problem is that we've been thinking too small.

Admittedly, the above is probably counter-intuitive to the growing belief that the $431-million retractable roof domed stadium is just too big for the province and city.

But when you break down what's wrong with the $431-million proposal (which will soon trend skyward when the provincial government updates the construction costs), it's just not really a good economic fit for anybody.

The Saskatchewan Party government -which truly wants this project to happen -has steered clear of any talk of tax increases or plebiscites. (North Dakota's Fargodome required two plebiscites for a two-per-cent state sales tax still in effect.) Instead, the stadium has been sold on the rather nebulous notion of massive federal government or private sector support.

However, the private sector contribution ($70 million for stadium naming rights and luxury boxes) will cover less than 15 per cent of the likely final pricetag. Why would business invest more? What's the economics of any business buying into a half-billion-dollar capital expenditure that's not expected to make more than $2 million annually?

As for that $100-million-plus request to the federal public-private participation (P3) fund, the stadium proposal still doesn't fit the fund's criteria that requires 25-per-cent private-sector involvement and excludes sports facilities largely used by professional teams.

And even if Ottawa does fork over $100 million, that still leaves about two-thirds of the cost of what will be a half-billion-dollar project to the city and the province. While the City of Regina contribution has been described as small, sources say the P3 bid has Regina in for a sizable $80 million. (As opposed to $60 million speculated in this space last Friday.)

This burden on local taxpayers (city and provincial) could be a deal-breaker . . . unless there's an argument that this project offers more than just a football stadium.

What if the stadium proposal was re-worked to entice massive private sector investment into Regina's core, to maximize federal support through other avenues and to substantially increase the benefits to include lowincome housing, condo and retail development in Regina's core?

Instead of writing off the stadium project as too big, what if we thought even bigger?

It's mostly been blue-skying to date, but this appears to be the thinking of some politicians of various stripes. Some are eyeing the Mosaic Stadium at Taylor Field space for low-income housing, condo and retail development -a critical second phase to the new stadium development at the proposed downtown railyard location.

For instance, Regina Wascana Liberal MP Ralph Goodale wrote to the Sask. Party government last September urging it to segment "federal contributions in various categories" including "land remediation and environmental cleanup." Goodale also raised the prospect of "transforming the old Taylor Field site into a major new affordable housing development, producing a tangible socio-economic gain for low-income people."

Bringing this all together wouldn't be easy (or cheap) but consider the upside:

Private land developers and construction companies would simply salivate at developing a whole new downtown community on the Taylor Field site. (Call the new development "Taylor Field". Name the streets after Rider greats. How about Piffles Avenue?) And it would certainly qualify for P3 funding, meaning access to more federal dollars for the project through another avenue.

Who knows? Perhaps the city could offer land tax abatements to developers in exchange for their investment in the new "multipurpose entertainment facility"?

What is known is that Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco is interested in the future development of Taylor Field. And one suspects federal Conservative MPs like Tom Lukiwski and Andrew Scheer -who are trying to find a way to make federal funding work -would eagerly take any new ideas forward.

Wouldn't this approach address the argument that housing should be a bigger priority than football stadiums?

Sure, this would still be costly to city and provincial taxpayers. And the notion of a much bigger project will be scary to some.

But maybe we do need to be thinking bigger instead of smaller.

- Mandryk is the political columnist for the Leader-Post.
© Copyright (c) The Regina Leader-Post

http://www.leaderpost.com/business/T...#ixzz1ChafJl8w

[Arts]

I definitely agree that for a stadium to be feasible we have to put it into a larger context... however I was not particularly thinking "big" in terms of land abatements for developers as the goal, I was thinking of big ways to put the new venue to use.

What was Commonwealth stadium in Edmonton built for? - the Commonwealth Games. Montreal's Olympic Stadium? - the Olympics, BC Place? - world's exposition fair. etc. If we want to get this thing built we need to put it to use on the world stage, when we can attract an event that will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars <i>then</i> we will have a working budget for a stadium.

So what we should all be doing is lobbying support for that kind of event, or two and if our politicians want to sell the public on this then they should set some clear goals. How about "University Games"? What about "World Masters Games?" Looking down the road there is the 2022 Commonwealth games yet to be determined, Pan-Am games, etc. How is that for thinking big? Don't chicken out at this point and say we are too small to host those or don't have the natural ammenities etc - Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Victoria have all successfully hosted events that all seemed larger in scale than their cities, but they were forward looking enough to pull themselves up the the necessary level.

The potential in Regina is much higher than any average pop.200,000 city, just look at the emerging skyline as proof that we can compete against any other market we want to.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Migs

Looks like Mandryk is finally starting to 'get it'. I've been saying it all along that this is more than just a stadium project.



http://www.leaderpost.com/business/T...#ixzz1ChafJl8w

Interesting ideas he puts forward. However, the multipurpose stadium doesn't need to get built in order to create low income housing and condos on Taylor Field land - there is plenty of land available for that within the core already. Furthermore, an argument could be made that a renovated Taylor Field could free up the rail lands for low income housing and condos, if that was a priorty. I'm surprised you haven't jumped all over "tax abatements for companies that contribute to the stadium" - you've made your political views quite clear in the past, so I can't see you supporting subsidies for enticing private investment (or low income housing, which is something out of the old, "socialist" NDP's playbook, right?)

Either way, I find it ironic that you say Mandryk "gets it" now that a small part of his message lines up with yours - Just last week you were making every attempt to marginalize him and discredit his views! Regardless, much of his article also raises important questions as to the funding, etc that myself and others have been asking too...

On a related note, does anyone know how much the land remediation costs for the rail lands are? Is it already factored into the price of the stadium project? Thanks...

[BrannyMuffin]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Really? Where is all this land? Sure, there are individual lots spread out, but there isn't much for 2.5 blocks of space for a large group of low-income and/or multi-unit residential development in the area.



You are actually suggesting they should put low-income housing in between the Warehouse District and downtown? Not to mention it is across the street from the Dewdney strip, with the Casino on the other side of the tracks. This land is far too valuable for low-income housing. No offense, but do you know anything about Regina?

Aside from this, a mix of low income housing (rentals), low cost (owned) housing, social services, and retail would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Imagine a real grocery store that neighborhood residents could walk to instead of gas stations and 7-11s.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Really? Where is all this land? Sure, there are individual lots spread out, but there isn't much for 2.5 blocks of space for a large group of low-income and/or multi-unit residential development in the area.

Clearly you have no background in urban planning. Perhaps you think we should return to the days of huge low-income housing projects, which concertate poverty in high densities? The current model is indeed a dispersal of units in a variety of areas, of which the individual lots downtown and in the core would be well suited for.

You are actually suggesting they should put low-income housing in between the Warehouse District and downtown? Not to mention it is across the street from the Dewdney strip, with the Casino on the other side of the tracks. This land is far too valuable for low-income housing. No offense, but do you know anything about Regina?

Yep, I know lots about Regina. Relatives live there, and I've been there many times. In my post I stated that the railway lands could be freed up for low income housing and condos - If urban revitalization is indeed the goal, then housing is the way to go for these "valuable" lands, not a stadium. Interestingly enough, no one even knows how valuable the land is - If the costs of land remidiation are prohibitively high, it would lower the value quite a bit. But, as you suggest, low-income housing is appropriate for the Taylor Field location (a few blocks west). Is this land not valuable too? The main point was that needed land for low income housing is a poor argument in favour of the stadium - if it were a priority, there are literally hundreds of other locations throughout the city where it could go...

[babo]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

The land by Taylor field is already surrounded by residential. The land at the CP railyards, as mentioned is surrounded by bars, restaurants, the post office and the casino, and as such, is not suitable for low-income and would not create an ideal gateway between the Warehouse district and downtown, as planned with the stadium. Commercial, shopping, entertainment and as you mentioned, condos and other high-density residential would be better suited for here. I'm not a professional, this is just my general opinion and I'm sure others would agree.

I don't agree.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Interesting ideas he puts forward.

Its not his idea, although he'll try and make people think it is.

However, the multipurpose stadium doesn't need to get built in order to create low income housing and condos on Taylor Field land - there is plenty of land available for that within the core already. Furthermore, an argument could be made that a renovated Taylor Field could free up the rail lands for low income housing and condos, if that was a priorty. I'm surprised you haven't jumped all over "tax abatements for companies that contribute to the stadium" - you've made your political views quite clear in the past, so I can't see you supporting subsidies for enticing private investment (or low income housing, which is something out of the old, "socialist" NDP's playbook, right?)

Either way, I find it ironic that you say Mandryk "gets it" now that a small part of his message lines up with yours - Just last week you were making every attempt to marginalize him and discredit his views! Regardless, much of his article also raises important questions as to the funding, etc that myself and others have been asking too...

On a related note, does anyone know how much the land remediation costs for the rail lands are? Is it already factored into the price of the stadium project? Thanks...

Sorry bdog but I ain't getting baited into another pissin match with you, you know my thoughts on this project and i ain't going to regurjitate them once again. When I said Mandryk finally gets it, it was in regards to the fact that this is project is about much more than just a new stadium, sorry I didn't point out the obvious to you. Its pretty obvious that the only reason why you participate in this thread is to talk down to and try to discredit those who want this project completed as is (ie. as evidenced by your suggestion that we put a lowincome housing project beside the Dewdney Avenue strip, the Casino, and Regina's biggest shopping mall) Brilliant idea lol

That said, if your continuous negative participation in this thread has something to do with a Winnipeg inferiority complex, I don't really know and don't really care. Welcome to my ignore list, you got one Regina stadium thread closed with your Debbie Downer negative "You can't do it" schtick, I ain't going to participate in letting you achieve another.

[thefourthtower]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I didn't expect you to . I'm sorry, but low-income housing is something I just can't see, and don't want to see in that location. Its well needed in this city, but not there.

i second that

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Migs

Its pretty obvious that the only reason why you participate in this thread is to talk down to and try to discredit those who want this project completed as is (ie. as evidenced by your suggestion that we put a lowincome housing project beside the Dewdney Avenue strip, the Casino, and Regina's biggest shopping mall) Brilliant idea lol

That said, if your continuous negative participation in this thread has something to do with a Winnipeg inferiority complex, I don't really know and don't really care. Welcome to my ignore list, you got one Regina stadium thread closed with your Debbie Downer negative "You can't do it" schtick, I ain't going to participate in letting you achieve another.

I'm not sure you read my post. Nowhere did I suggest the lands become a "low income housing project" - I suggested the opposite, stating that if low-income housing is a priorty, it should be dispersed throughout, not concentrated in one area. I also said that housing, regardless of price or tenure type, has been proven to be a more effective strategy for downtown revitalization than stadiums (and the stated goal for the land has been revitalization).

I've already stated my interest in this topic, as I've done graduate research on infrastructure projects in the past, including on stadiums as downtown renewal catalysts. I realize that you want to silence open debate on the stadium, and silence those who do not agree with your opinion. And to suggest that I am responsible for the last group getting locked? If I have broken any forum rules, feel free to alert the moderators, and they can decide what action to take against me.

It's February 1st - let the countdown to the announcement begin.