[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So does building new corporate office towers. You think we should throw a couple hundred million at Shell to keep them in Calgary? They provide more jobs, better paying jobs, and longer lasting jobs. Giving money to Shell actually makes more economic sense than an arena, so surely you support it right?

You think the governments don't give money to big corporations to lure them to cities and make it attractive to stay? You been living under a rock or something?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Corporations are significantly more valuable to local economies than sports teams. If you are actually arguing otherwise, you are even more desperate for this to happen then I could have ever imagined.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You think the governments don't give money to big corporations to lure them to cities and make it attractive to stay? You been living under a rock or something?

Care to give some local examples?

We've seen Bombardier, automakers, and banks get propped up (the extent and method of doing so is worthy of discussion), but when as Calgary or Alberta written a cheque to a company (I'm not claiming it's never happened, but nothing comes to mind)?

I anticipate you will come back with something related to taxes or land - that's not the same as your claim above. Most people are open to similar 'opportunity cost' possibilities for an arena, but I'd like you to show me some direct payment examples...

[wingmaker]

Honestly, going to shows in arenas kind of blows. If you want to attract big music acts, why not build a state of the art music venue? Would cost just as much and would actually contribute more to the tourism and cultural economies. There are concert venues that are marvellous architectural buildings that can put on all sorts of shows and draw tourists from around the globe. If the argument is to build a sports arena to attract musical artists, why not just skip the sports part and build a kick ass concert hall?

There is no economic argument for municipal governments to spend money on arenas, especially when they already have an existing arena. Construction jobs are temporary. Any tourism dollars from the novelty of a new arena are temporary. A new building does not create new fans. The same fans going to the new building went to the old building. They spend money in different bars that are close to the new arena rather than bars that were somewhere else. Plus, these buildings are ugly. I cannot think of a single sports complex that is attractive from the outside. So there is no benefit from a landmark/architectural perspective.

The only case to be made is that there is a civic pride issue and cultural value to having a state of the art facility because of x, y, and z. Then it can be discussed whether that particular project is worth several hundred million over other projects that would contribute to the culture of the city. Personally, I'd vote for the state of the art concert venue over a sports complex that can sort of accommodate concerts.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

Honestly, going to shows in arenas kind of blows. If you want to attract big music acts, why not build a state of the art music venue? Would cost just as much and would actually contribute more to the tourism and cultural economies. There are concert venues that are marvellous architectural buildings that can put on all sorts of shows and draw tourists from around the globe. If the argument is to build a sports arena to attract musical artists, why not just skip the sports part and build a kick ass concert hall?

Because music acts tour city to city in arenas and design their sets around arena layouts. Build a music venue that doesn't fit their set designs and you would have the same problem we have today. Or you can build a music venue that works with these massive sets designed for arenas and... end up with an arena.

[wingmaker]

Originally Posted by rage2

Because music acts tour city to city in arenas and design their sets around arena layouts. Build a music venue that doesn't fit their set designs and you would have the same problem we have today. Or you can build a music venue that works with these massive sets designed for arenas and... end up with an arena.

That is ridiculous. What exactly is so specific about an arena that a building designed to accommodate music acts couldn't also work with?

Also, that thinking is very local. I am saying if you want to attract high end music acts, why not think bigger and build a state of the art facility that people would go out of their way to play in, not just fit into their existing tour.

State of the art music venues these days can do all sorts of crazy things to accommodate different set ups. I am not talking about a traditional concert venue with a stage and raked seating. I am talking about a state of the art concert venue that can morph and change to accommodate a variety of art forms and presentations.

Look, it's a derail and I am not expecting people to agree with me. But arguments in favour of municipal money for sports arenas that use other cultural benefits as the rationale strike me as silly. If we want cultural benefits, why not just build an amazing cultural facility?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ams/100379128/

Interesting that the Rams are suing the NFL and claiming the city lost $100 million and annual state revenue of $15 million. All this for a team that only plays 8 home dates a season. Doesn't that go against the naysayers argument that professional sports provide no economical benefits to a city?

Yes because Statement's of Claim always have accurate numbers in them...

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm not suing the NFL so I don't need to make the numbers work, that's up to St. Louis. Yet after all that $140 million debt there's a net annual revenue of $15 million made. It seems like you can spin these numbers any way you want to support your argument doesn't it?

So building new stadiums and arenas does create jobs and provide economical benefit eh?

Just stop.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Care to give some local examples?

We've seen Bombardier, automakers, and banks get propped up (the extent and method of doing so is worthy of discussion), but when as Calgary or Alberta written a cheque to a company (I'm not claiming it's never happened, but nothing comes to mind)?

I anticipate you will come back with something related to taxes or land - that's not the same as your claim above. Most people are open to similar 'opportunity cost' possibilities for an arena, but I'd like you to show me some direct payment examples...

MagCan? Gainers? Swan Hills? Those are some of the failures (and thus reported).

Right now there's the Sturgeon Refinery.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Just stop.

It sucks doesn't it when real numbers are thrown into the argument.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Did you miss this EE, or did you simply ignore it since it shows your whole "The Rams made money" argument is not even remotely true

To cover costs, the city paid about $6 million for annual debt service and maintenance for the stadium but collected only about $4.2 million in direct revenues from Rams games, according to the Mayor's office. The state, which paid $12 million annually, made $12.4 million in revenues from NFL activities, Missouri Department of Economic Development estimated. The county paid $6 million annually; it's unclear how much of that was offset by Rams-related revenues.

All three entities will continue paying their share until the debt is paid off in 2021.

A $1.8 million loss for the city, a $400,000 gain from the state, unknown from the country, but likely a loss in the same ballpark as the city. I like that somehow to you a net loss of between $2-4 million is somehow an economic benefit. Feel free to start letting me control your portfolio, I can make similar economic benefits for you.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

That is ridiculous. What exactly is so specific about an arena that a building designed to accommodate music acts couldn't also work with?

Also, that thinking is very local. I am saying if you want to attract high end music acts, why not think bigger and build a state of the art facility that people would go out of their way to play in, not just fit into their existing tour.

Because it's a business and it's all about profitability. Arenas and Stadiums have the capacity to host 15k+ with stadiums 40k+. Nobody would go out of their way to build a set for music specific venues and only able to seat 5000 people unless you're charging $2k a ticket. The math just isn't there.

My point is, you build a music facility that hosts 15k people, you're forced to gear it towards acts that have sets designed for arenas. Nobody will build a single event specific set unless it's a residency, and last we checked, this ain't Vegas.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Did you miss this EE, or did you simply ignore it since it shows your whole "The Rams made money" argument is not even remotely true



A $1.8 million loss for the city, a $400,000 gain from the state, unknown from the country, but likely a loss in the same ballpark as the city. I like that somehow to you a net loss of between $2-4 million is somehow an economic benefit. Feel free to start letting me control your portfolio, I can make similar economic benefits for you.

Of course he ignored them. Just like the articles and papers showing that these are loser deals for cities are linked in this thread, and the past threads.

[calgaryjohn87]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

MagCan? Gainers? Swan Hills? Those are some of the failures (and thus reported).

Right now there's the Sturgeon Refinery.

The sturgeon refinery is an investment from the government in partnership with CNRL. The province owns a portion of that refinery once she is up and running, it's a great facility, worked there for a year.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

MagCan? Gainers? Swan Hills? Those are some of the failures (and thus reported).

Right now there's the Sturgeon Refinery.

Thanks. I still don't really see how what EE's point is, though? Murray's already getting plenty of gov't money? The government has made plenty of mistakes with public money in the past, so it's okay to go for another? Another current example seems to be True North, which is another boondoggle.

Sturgeon sounds interesting:

In June 2014, six months after the refinery‘s cost estimate was bumped from $5.7 billion to $8.5 billion, Alberta’s then-Progressive Conservative government revealed processing fees would be an estimated $26 billion over the 30-year agreement, up from the previous estimate of $19 billion.

The NDP government, like the previous Conservative government, says that over the life of the agreement, Alberta can expect to earn a profit of between $200 million and $700 million by selling higher-priced refined products instead of bitumen.

I'm sure it's not a slam dunk guarantee, but there are actual, tangible, realistic ROI that can be measured. 30 years from now we'll know whether it was a good investment or not. 30 years from now, we'll have no idea how a new arena actually impacted the local economy, and we'll probably be talking about building another one.

I've said all along that I'm plenty happy for public money to go if the Flames care to give up a equity (ie. an actual two-way partnership). The city owning the building is a liability, not a benefit.

[Envitro]

Hi everyone,

I figured I'd post this here. I just signed a petition on Change.org regarding the new Sports and Entertainment arena in Calgary.

We are demanding answers or at least a position from all candidates for mayor and council before the election!

Check out the Campaign here, and sign it if you think it's a good idea.

[CedarMeter]

Link isn't opening for me.

Working now, thanks.

[calgaryjohn87]

I am surprised there's as many people as there is opposed to an arena on this forum.

For Calgary to maintain its world class status we need a world class venue. We host some of the wealthiest people in the world for our Oil conferences and our venues are just not up to par.

The total taxpayer comtribution would be far less then $1000 per person in Calgary, that is not a lot of money for a one of a kind, state of the art, world class, better then Edmonton, type of building.

Calgary needs a building they can show off to the world as being a masterpiece and revolutionary, if a measly 1.3 billion Calgary dollars does that then I dont truly see what the problem or hold up is.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgaryjohn87

I am surprised there's as many people as there is opposed to an arena on this forum.

For Calgary to maintain its world class status we need a world class venue. We host some of the wealthiest people in the world for our Oil conferences and our venues are just not up to par.

The total taxpayer comtribution would be far less then $1000 per person in Calgary, that is not a lot of money for a one of a kind, state of the art, world class, better then Edmonton, type of building.

Calgary needs a building they can show off to the world as being a masterpiece and revolutionary, if a measly 1.3 billion Calgary dollars does that then I dont truly see what the problem or hold up is.

I dont think any of us are 'opposed' to a new arena.

Literally '0' people think: "The Saddledome is good enough and can last forever."

We all want a new arena, but man, there has to be a limit as to how much of the bill people can expect the taxpayers to foot.

You know what? If they want the City to pay for a new arena then great. We can and will.

They will not like the rent.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by calgaryjohn87

I am surprised there's as many people as there is opposed to an arena on this forum.

For Calgary to maintain its world class status we need a world class venue. We host some of the wealthiest people in the world for our Oil conferences and our venues are just not up to par.

The total taxpayer comtribution would be far less then $1000 per person in Calgary, that is not a lot of money for a one of a kind, state of the art, world class, better then Edmonton, type of building.

Calgary needs a building they can show off to the world as being a masterpiece and revolutionary, if a measly 1.3 billion Calgary dollars does that then I dont truly see what the problem or hold up is.

Green text?