CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

^ For me, this argument gets murky at the 'at their own expense' part.
Do the Flames pay all infrastructure costs including roadways/ramps and transit stops? Is that at their own expense as well?

I think the basic assumption should be that if someone thinks the Flames should be building their own venue then they likely want the Flames to be treated like any other private developer.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But it doesn't. It really, really doesn't. CFL fans can come after me all they want, the CFL is a second tier professional sport. It doesn't deserve the money because it's never going to generate enough of a return on building it. The CFL, like the NFL, is also primarily a TV sport that will always make more money through the TV deal than asses in seats. It will not go away if the existing teams are playing in the same stadiums for the next 50 years, because TV will keep it making money.

More than there's no way to make money building a CFL stadium, there's no financially viable reason for the team to need a new stadium. It won't change the bottom line very much for the Stamps, who won't benefit like the Flames who will get more corporate boxes and will charge higher ticket prices. The CFL can't afford to increase ticket prices because demand for its live product is not that high (IMO CFL ticket prices are already too high). And corporate boxes in an "amateur sports facility"? Hmmm....

In general I find the notion of an "amateur sports facility" having a professional sports tenant just odd. And it obviously will affect availability. I seriously doubt the team will be the ones adjusting its schedule to fit in with the amateur facility, it'll almost certainly be the opposite.

The cases where the NFL generates a return for building a stadium with any amount of public money are few and far between. Making this a CFL/NFL issue is instigating an irrelevant argument.

Questions of public benefit in situations like this are highly complex, subjective, spurious, and difficult to quantify. Building a stadium is more analogous to building a swimming pool helping the public stay healthy rather than a water treatment plant to meet then needs for a new widget factory in the region.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by jmac98

The news this morning was talking about road construction proposals for Crowchild around the Bow. Discussion of a tunnel, etc. I didn't catch a lot of it as my kids tend to sense when I'm trying to listen to something and their little radars go off telling them to start talking mindlessly, but I wonder how this impacts the arena plan if in fact that's still plan A or whatever. Im sure its all in its infancy, but do believe some road access rework was part of the plan for Calgary Next as well. If the city is looking for solutions without the arena proposal determined, I wonder where that slots into things. Again, it's in its infancy all the same, but just found it curious I guess. Wondered how this factors in if at all.

The two areas don't overlap. The West Village redevelopment won't impact the Crowchild redevelopment, and vice versa.

Here's the thread about the Crowchild redevelopment: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=154965

[sureLoss]

Apparently Flames have sent out an e-mail to season tix holders.

Some of the highlights:
explained the city's report of $1.8 billion cost included costs that would be incurred by the city regardless of whether CalgaryNEXT goes ahead or not.
will respond to the city's report
asked by the city to examine a Plan B in which an events center would be built on Stampede ground, fieldhouse at Foothills, and renovations to McMahon

[Senator Clay Davis]

Sounds about right for plan B. Hope they like that plan too because it'll probably be the end result.

[Fire]

You would think that in order to renovate McMahon to modern day standards you would have to pretty much tear it all down and rebuild it from scratch. The Stampeders to play on the road for an entire season?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Apparently Flames have sent out an e-mail to season tix holders.

Some of the highlights:
explained the city's report of $1.8 billion cost included costs that would be incurred by the city regardless of whether CalgaryNEXT goes ahead or not.
will respond to the city's report
asked by the city to examine a Plan B in which an events center would be built on Stampede ground, fieldhouse at Foothills, and renovations to McMahon

****. Stop ignoring the freakin time value of money!!!!!!

[getbak]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Apparently Flames have sent out an e-mail to season tix holders.

Some of the highlights:
explained the city's report of $1.8 billion cost included costs that would be incurred by the city regardless of whether CalgaryNEXT goes ahead or not.
will respond to the city's report
asked by the city to examine a Plan B in which an events center would be built on Stampede ground, fieldhouse at Foothills, and renovations to McMahon

Here's the text of the email...

Friends, I’m writing to update you on the progress towards CalgaryNEXT- a transformative multi-sport facility that will provide a new home to professional and amateur athletes alike. There has been much talk and publicity on the City’s analysis released on April 20th which was not encouraging, nor unanimous from their perspective. We feel it is important that we let our supporters know what the road forward looks like from our perspective.

We have been invited, and intend, to respond to the City administration’s report. As stated, we remain passionate about the vision for CalgaryNEXT. The proposed facility is an important solution that meets sports infrastructure needs in a location accessible for all Calgarians in a cost-effective manner. CalgaryNEXT will act as a cornerstone in a redeveloped downtown west end and provide Calgarians with year-round access to the sports they love as well as a world class venue to attract premier sports and cultural events. The city’s review of the project brought up a number of reasonable questions surrounding the facility and we are in the midst of answering them in a prepared response.

While our response will address all the City’s questions in full, one point needs to be responded to immediately. The City’s report stated that CalgaryNEXT would bear a total cost of $1.8 billion – a number more than twice what we have initially proposed. I assure you that the total cost of this facility, as confirmed by three independent contractors, remains $890 million as we’ve said all along. Many of the “additional” costs outlined in the report are those that will be incurred for the ultimate development of West Village, the fieldhouse and contamination clean-up with or without, the inclusion of CalgaryNEXT. Our response will address incremental costs as well as challenging certain assertions and assumptions in the report.

The City is an important partner in this process and we are continuing to work with them to find the best way to meet the sports and recreation needs of Calgarians. We have accepted an offer from the City to examine a “Plan B” which would see an arena and event centre only located on the Stampede Grounds, a separate fieldhouse in the northwest near the University of Calgary and some renovation to McMahon Stadium. While we question the logic of building separate structures and a temporary solution for McMahon, we are encouraged that the city is taking the need for new sports infrastructure seriously. We enter this process with an open mind but also a strong belief that CalgaryNEXT is the most logical solution that will benefit all Calgarians.

Once our response to the city is complete, we will share it with you and I welcome your feedback and any questions you may have. I encourage you to speak up in conversations about CalgaryNEXT and share your views on the project with friends and family. Our website, CalgaryNEXT.com, will provide you with more information on the project. We need your support and encourage you to contact your City Councillor to share your thoughts. Contact information can be found on the following website: http://www.calgary.ca/CityCouncil/Pa...and-Wards.aspx.

Thank you for your ongoing support and I’ll speak with you again soon.

[sureLoss]

nm see above

[DJones]

Pretty meh about plan B but I guess that makes the most sense. The West Village is such a perfect spot but there just isn't a billion dollars to clean it up right now.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

****. Stop ignoring the freakin time value of money!!!!!!

What are your thoughts on that?

[jmac98]

Originally Posted by DJones

Pretty meh about plan B but I guess that makes the most sense. The West Village is such a perfect spot but there just isn't a billion dollars to clean it up right now.

I am all over plan B myself. Option A seems a terrible spot for anyone wanting to drive to the game both for football and hockey, as well as anyone wanting to use the field house at nearly any time. It looked so crammed in there in the pictures and seemed like it was going to be a hassle to get to the arena if you weren't a ctrain user.

The field house belongs at Foothills in my view. It's absolutely where it should go for optimum use. And maybe I'm just a creature of habit, but I like the arena where it is and would love for it to remain on the grounds. It's entirely set up already to support everything needed, complete with familiarity with no surprises of congestion, best routes to enter/exit, etc.
Same with McMahon. I'm not a CFL ticket holder, but I assume as a Flames ticket holder who was not necessarily thrilled about a relocation to a new site with zero parking and seemingly less entrance/exit routes on the other end of downtown, I gather there is a host of ticket holders for football who maybe felt the same. They may be more upset at an 'upgrade' versus new arena, but until/unless that transpires I can wager there's some folks who saw the proposal and thought "thats going to be a nightmare to get to by comparison to the existing."

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

What are your thoughts on that?

I think you're just poking the bear, but just in case:

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Time value of money. Yes, it needs to be done eventually, but all signs seem to indicate that the Flames proposal would force it to happen at least a decade earlier than otherwise planned. Assuming a decade of acceleration and a discount rate of 5%, that's about a 60% increase in net present cost to the city. And I think a decade and 5% is a pretty good middle of the ground assumption.

Note that this also applies to the city claiming that this is a $1.8B project. Sorry, City of Calgary, this might be a $1.8B project but you know damn well you'll eventually have to do a bunch of this stuff. You should have done yourselves a favor and come across as the intelligent one here by calculating and communicating the truth which so obviously lies in the middle here.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I think you're just poking the bear, but just in case:



Note that this also applies to the city claiming that this is a $1.8B project. Sorry, City of Calgary, this might be a $1.8B project but you know damn well you'll eventually have to do a bunch of this stuff. You should have done yourselves a favor and come across as the intelligent one here by calculating and communicating the truth which so obviously lies in the middle here.

Wasn't poking the bear at all, just hadn't done my research and seen your earlier post. I always worry that when I ask questions I'll come off like I'm actually challenging, so I assure you I'm honestly trying to get your point on this.

Is your point that you feel like Flames aren't taking into account that they would be forcing the clean up earlier than the City would otherwise do it (which I agree and feel is a huge roadblock to the Flames proposal), and because the discount rate of money (whatever it might be, understood you are using 5%) that this represents an increase in cost for the city?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by DJones

Pretty meh about plan B but I guess that makes the most sense. The West Village is such a perfect spot but there just isn't a billion dollars to clean it up right now.

Personally I still think the perfect spot for the new arena is the Remington lands just north of Stampede and south of East Village (currently a vast sea of emptiness). It would be perfect in terms of public transit (as it would be be within walking distance to all 3 lines including the new Green line) and would be part of an already existing "entertainment district". Instead of diluting development and trying to compete with all the other areas around the inner city, we would be reinforcing a fledgling part of town. When you also consider that it doesn't require land reclamation and is already empty, meaning we wouldn't have to wait half a decade to even start construction, it's pretty perfect.

The only downside is the Flames would have to actually pay for the land they want to build on. Shocking, I know.

The West Village can wait for the Olympics to be redeveloped...it would make for a really nice Olympic village that can then be converted to condos like last time.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Personally I still think the perfect spot for the new arena is the Remington lands just north of Stampede and south of East Village (currently a vast sea of emptiness). It would be perfect in terms of public transit (as it would be be within walking distance to all 3 lines including the new Green line) and would be part of an already existing "entertainment district". Instead of diluting development and trying to compete with all the other areas around the inner city, we would be reinforcing a fledgling part of town. When you also consider that it doesn't require land reclamation and is already empty, meaning we wouldn't have to wait half a decade to even start construction, it's pretty perfect.

The only downside is the Flames would have to actually pay for the land they want to build on. Shocking, I know.

The West Village can wait for the Olympics to be redeveloped...it would make for a really nice Olympic village that can then be converted to condos like last time.

Like by Fort Calgary? North or South of 9th Ave? I'm not entirely sure what is considered East Village.

I wouldn't be upset with that. Wonder who owns the land.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by DJones

Like by Fort Calgary? North or South of 9th Ave? I'm not entirely sure what is considered East Village.

I wouldn't be upset with that. Wonder who owns the land.

Remington, a developer owns it. It is south of 9th Ave.

[shermanator]

"There is no Plan B" - Ken King, August 2015
"LOL #### off with CalgaryNEXT." - City of Calgary, as well as a majority of Calgarians
"Here's Plan B" - Ken King, probably, June 2016

[Stay Golden]

Billionaire owners should pay for their own arenas. Period. The city would not pay for hypothetically a new CNRL office building. Nor would Edwards ask.The city should pay for 50% of the infrastructure costs to the changes that would be needed to roadways as that portion of the project is city owned and operated.
The only way I see the city being able to avoid or minimize their infrastructure costs is if the Flames somehow build elsewhere near the the Saddledome. The Flames likely do not want to build on Stampede owned land and continue to be a tennant, so that poses another problem unless they can convince the Stampede board to sell the land which I can't see the Stampede board ever agreeing to sell. Which brings me to another question has Ken King resolved anything of substance in his new role with the Flames??
He commented 2 years ago something similar to this... his primary new function is securing a new arena and the business development that would compliment it.
A plan that most Calgarians viewed as unfavorable for several different reasons a year ago, is now on the verge of being shelved.
So what has KKing really accomplished in what is deemed his primary function??

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by shermanator

"There is no Plan B" - Ken King, August 2015
"LOL #### off with CalgaryNEXT." - City of Calgary, as well as a majority of Calgarians
"Here's Plan B" - Ken King, probably, June 2016

To be fair, they haven't given up on Plan A, and don't see Plan B as a good alternative, but indicated that they would play ball with the city.