Is there really any real reason the Saddledome can't work for another 20 years? I see only 2 minor reasons:
1. Of course there are revenue generation limitations, butI would simply argue that these are factored into the CSEC's sweetheart deal to exploit the existing resource. If the city invests to improve these, then we deserve more returns from them.
2. Patron experience could always be improved, but IMO improvements are going to be marginal, and not without unforeseen drawbacks. There will always be around 18000 people who want to arrive, pee, buy food/beer, and leave at the same time. Of course design changes can make this better, but other than the priciest seats, we're talking about a 2 minutes to pee instead of 4, and 5 minutes to buy beer [for more money] instead of 8.
IMO both of the above are very minor issues in the grand scheme of things. I'm a little concerned at how much the city has been driving the bus on this, but I hope it is still possible for them to drive a hard-line take-it or leave-it proposal for CSEC. The arena will be a key catalyst for revitalizing the entertainment district, but I hope CMLC and city council can remember that the latter is not fully reliant on the former.
The first step I would really like to see before moving on to this actual project, is the agreement and immediate implementation of a 'facility improvement fee' on all tickets for Saddledome events. This would be in perpetuity and additional to a 'ticket-tax' for the new arena project. Whatever money is generated before a final agreement on funding this arena can go to it. After that, the money builds up in anticipation of the next arena project, whether it's 30, 50, or 70 years. This could have, and should have been done immediately after the 04' cup run, when the team's future was re-stabilized.
This 'facility improvement fee' can be duplicated for other purely 'entertainment' venues in the city that are likely to ask for public money for future reno/replacement (McMahon, Art Commons, Jubilee, Stampede venues, etc.). For these most discretionary of expenditures, users should be forking out a few quarters (toonies for the Dome) every visit to help cover future capital costs. I delineate these venues/event-types from others like museums, rec centres, zoos, etc. in the value they bring to society - an opera, hockey game, or concert bring varying degrees of cultural value, but IMO users should bear a greater burden of sustaining these, as compared with Glenbow Museum, Heritage Park, or Repsol Centre, which bring more accessible and tangible educational and health benefits to society.
|