Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
But there won't be any additional population due to the arena... there won't be additional people requiring a place to live because the Saddledome gets replaced (so the residential market is unchanged). Likewise people aren't going to set their money on fire if they can't spend it two blocks away from the Saddledome... that's $ that they'd just spend elsewhere (so again it isn't generating additional income city wide it's just moving it around).
If I take $2.00 out of my right pocket and put it in my left pocket I'm not $2.00 richer.
|
On a Friday or Saturday night there is a good chance that the wife and I might be lounging at home or go for dinner and then come home. Lets say it costs us $150.
When I go to a flames game, I have spent $150 before I enter the arena as chances are we go for dinner before hand. That flames game was directly involved with me spending 2-3x as much as I normally would have.
Anytime someone says that those people will move from somewhere else and impact another area I wonder if they think we should stop developing all together.
1) The city has said but needs to put more emphasis on building up and in, not out.
2) The population is growing and attractive cities tend to grow faster.
If we put a ban on no new people allowed to move to Calgary then yes, I get your point but when thousands of people start to move here as we snap out of this recession, they will require homes. If the city stops allowing a new community in the burbs every chance it gets then we create added demand. This demand will ensure that arena-ville as well as the areas people moved from to get to arena-ville are all filled.