[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

In effect, the owners will forgo part of their future revenue in exchange for financing up front. It's a way of putting a mortgage on the facility without calling it that.

Exactly. A ticket tax is effectively a loan to the Flames. It is not a public handout.

Question for those in the know...does the lender generate a return on a CRL or a ticket tax? i.e. on the $250M ticket dax, will the lender receive $250M in nominal dollars back (i.e. 0% return) or will they receive more (i.e. a return greater than 0%)?

If city funds either and the effective return is less than their cost of capital, then yes I will agree that it is a public handout. Not much of one on a present value basis I would assume.

[TopChed]

Awesome, thanks for the replies. I was hoping that was the case but hadn't seen any mention of it in my quick scan of the thread. Although in the renderings, the track looks pretty prominent even for the football layout.

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

I agree that the project is ambitious and transformative for Calgary but doesn't strike me as the truly top shelf project that its been characterized as. The 30K capacity for the football stadium is disappointing and seems like a compromise for the sake of the field house. If 28K is the average Stamps game attendance currently, wouldn't making the game day experience exponentially better, as King claims they are doing, mean that a lot more that 2 thousand additional people would show up at football games? Missed opportunity here if the stadium stays at 30K IMO.

Expandable to 50k and bigger doesn't always = better experience

[You Need a Thneed]

At this point, it seems like the major ask from the city is to redirect $200 million in funds (yet unfunded) from a feildhouse somewhere else to a fieldhouse in the West Village.

If the city has to pay for the cleanup itself, that could be a huge ask as well, but we don't know that yet. Either way, cleanup would likely be covered under the CRL, which (hopefully) means that the money gets repaid back to the city over time.

What the city gets in revenue from this building that they would own would be a big factor.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

I agree that the project is ambitious and transformative for Calgary but doesn't strike me as the truly top shelf project that its been characterized as. The 30K capacity for the football stadium is disappointing and seems like a compromise for the sake of the field house. If 28K is the average Stamps game attendance currently, wouldn't making the game day experience exponentially better, as King claims they are doing, mean that a lot more than 2 thousand additional people would show up at football games? Missed opportunity here if the stadium stays at 30K IMO.

The sweet spot for a stadium is to have capacity slightly below demand. 30,000 is ideal for the CFL in this city.

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by Cappy

For some reason there are no thanks, but thanks.

This post should be quoted everytime someone raises the CRL as a non-public money source.

No one is saying its a non-public source. The argument is whether it is actually an incremental source of tax for the city (i.e. from development that would not otherwise occur).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by JohnnyT

Expandable to 50k and bigger doesn't always = better experience

I think if the field house came out like this it would be good.

Spoiler!

Also, Troutman would like it as it has real grass

[browna]

On second glimpse, the field house really looks generic for a football stadium or Mls down the road.
Seems like very calculated wording. "event center" not hockey arena and pushing the field house aspect over the stadium wording.

My guess is that this was going to be 3 buildings, which is why they have the comparison numbers. Probably after a lot of back and forth and lots of factors, they decided on two.

Atmosphere for the Stamps games, probably no worse then they are now with the McMahon setup, but creative seating or not on the field house, it looks like playing in a warehouse. It is only to be used 12 times a year as a football setup with 30k people, sure, but just looks entirely bland.

Be interesting to see how this progresses. Field house was key to get the city on board as that is needed for the general public (well amateur athletes anyways) and as I said, I think a compromise stadium was created as part of it to save money and appear more efficient to tax payers.

I'd say make a flexible, large field house up at the McMahon site and make the second building on the river into a multipurpose stadium with a little more character.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Aleks

You have to realize theres 2 factors at play there though. 1, theres nothing out there right now that will draw anyone to live in a condo over there, its not exactly a hotbed nor very aesthetically pleasing of an area, and 2, its still contaminated so somebody has to take that first step, and once that is complete the palatability for development is much higher (and likely a bit more affordable). The whole thing needs to come together at the same time (or at least make the area vibrant, and viable first) in order to draw more development there

Why does an arena draw people to an area? its closed the majority of the year and when its busy, it makes all the bars and restaurants in the area packed beyond belief. Why not live in the beltline or East village where the flow is steady?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

King said outright that they get 27-28 grand for Stamps games

At McMahon.

Would more people go to a nicer more central stadium?

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Exactly. A ticket tax is effectively a loan to the Flames. It is not a public handout.

Question for those in the know...does the lender generate a return on a CRL or a ticket tax? i.e. on the $250M ticket dax, will the lender receive $250M in nominal dollars back (i.e. 0% return) or will they receive more (i.e. a return greater than 0%)?

If city funds either and the effective return is less than their cost of capital, then yes I will agree that it is a public handout. Not much of one on a present value basis I would assume.

Good question...especially with the estimated payout over 20 years you'd expect it be indexed to inflation / mill rates somehow.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Exactly. A ticket tax is effectively a loan to the Flames. It is not a public handout.

Question for those in the know...does the lender generate a return on a CRL or a ticket tax? i.e. on the $250M ticket dax, will the lender receive $250M in nominal dollars back (i.e. 0% return) or will they receive more (i.e. a return greater than 0%)?

If city funds either and the effective return is less than their cost of capital, then yes I will agree that it is a public handout. Not much of one on a present value basis I would assume.

They usually receive a nominal ROI

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Why does an arena draw people to an area? its closed the majority of the year and when its busy, it makes all the bars and restaurants in the area packed beyond belief. Why not live in the beltline or East village where the flow is steady?

Were you even listening or following the presentation?

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by JohnnyT

Expandable to 50k and bigger doesn't always = better experience

I think he means if the experience is better which it should be with a new stadium your gonna have more people wanting to go to games. If you already have 28k average your likely gonna see more than 2k extra because of the new stadium and experience. And personally I think the more people the better the experience. Espeically when the games matter. All the extra hastles like lines or whatever is the price you pay. I care more about the game experience though than before, between and after.

Does anyone know why they plan on making the arena smaller? I thought for sure capacity would increase not decrease. More suites will be an obvious addition but I figured a hockey crazed city like Calgary would be getting a 20k+ arena.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Were you even listening or following the presentation?

Yes.

I agree the fieldhouse is open to the public (when not being used by the Stamps etc.) so you live close to a gym and indoor park. same still applies.

but the event centre is not.

[Igottago]

Calgary isn't going to be hosting 50,000 seat events with any regularity, if at all. Making the stadium smaller makes perfect sense for this market.

[DoubleF]

Let me put my stance this way.

I like the idea a lot.

But, if this deal screws the city, I would have no issues watching the city and whoever else shelve the idea. I want a fair deal in place for both parties.

I might be naive and optimistic, but at least not dumb enough to demand a trigger be pulled because of sudden fuzzy feels.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Funny, because when I hear the man talk, I hear mostly BS caked with folksy stories and platitudes. At the end of the day, he has been in charge of this project since 2007, yet all they were able to accomplish in that time is release a semi-cohesive vision that's very low on detail, and ignores important things like Bow trail being realigned. This is honestly where they should've been 2-3 years ago.

If they want the City involved, the sooner someone like CMLC can take over the better. East Village is how it's done right.

A few points:

1) The current incarnation of this project started subsequent to the Flames acquisition of the Stampeders in late 2012. Prior to that they were looking at an arena site only, obviously an entirely different project.

2) What purpose would it serve to announce details to the public before a coherent concept had been arrived at? Take a look at the disaster in public engagement that was the Edmonton Arena district.

3) You must forget that the plan to redevelop the East Village began in 2002 - remember this (horrendously tacky) design?:


CMLC took over in 2009, and six years later we are finally nearing occupancy. While the finished product is nice, they haven't been extraordinarily successful in achieving absorption rates higher than anywhere else in the city. While their experience in working with CRL financing might be valuable to this project, it's not as if these guys are superstar developers.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Why does an arena draw people to an area? its closed the majority of the year and when its busy, it makes all the bars and restaurants in the area packed beyond belief. Why not live in the beltline or East village where the flow is steady?

Um, did you not hear the part about the fieldhouse being open to the public? Plus, you get concerts, conventions, etc that will use the arena at other times.

But hey, I guess those aren't as good at drawing people in as a Greyhound station and a couple of car dealerships sitting on top of contaminated land right?

[browna]

To Hackey:
Easy, less seats equals more demand and thus charging a higher price for seats that there are.

And yeah, this is basically a 3 year plan in the making. The new rink was wanted and plans started by KK and the owners as soon as 2005/6 behind the scenes and the scope changed as the Flames group expanded to include Stamps and Roughnecks since.

This is a compromise for sure. The Flames back then were going to build a single building on the land they showed today, and now have a second building on that spot.