[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

I was wondering this too (earlier in thread) and was told that you lose capacity due to improved leg room, bigger walk ways, more concourse, etc.

So the building may actually be bigger, but you lose seats.

Not sure if that's true or if the arena is smaller/same size to squeeze it into the available land (which is my fear).


Honestly, without more info on the design and specs, it's all speculation at this point.

[Cole436]

I personally don't know why we need a new CFL stadium. This is not a world class league, and it more than likely never will be. McMahon is very old, but does the revenue that it generates worthy of it to get a revitalization? According to Flames ownership, we're maybe closer to two decade away from seeing a MLS team in Calgary, which would be the only reasonable reason to create a new stadium.

Part of the appeal of BC Place is its huge capacity for housing concerts and a European size soccer crowd. We won't have that with the new CFL stadium the Flames are proposing.

Lets focus on a world class entertainment and hockey facility. I don't see the point of wasting millions of dollars and this being the huge gap for breaking ground on a new stadium.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Cole436

I personally don't know why we need a new CFL stadium. This is not a world class league, and it more than likely never will be. McMahon is very old, but does the revenue that it generates worthy of it to get a revitalization? According to Flames ownership, we're maybe closer to two decade away from seeing a MLS team in Calgary, which would be the only reasonable reason to create a new stadium.

Part of the appeal of BC Place is its huge capacity for housing concerts and a European size soccer crowd. We won't have that with the new CFL stadium the Flames are proposing.

Lets focus on a world class entertainment and hockey facility. I don't see the point of wasting millions of dollars and this being the huge gap for breaking ground on a new stadium.

Because it's also a fieldhouse and critical for getting city funding

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Handling of one of the biggest disasters in Canadian history.

dino7c is basically the anti-Cappy.

Funny tweets and encouraging messages on social media aside what did he do?

I would like to think more than one person "handled" that situation

"no money" is just lazy

eventually stadiums will have to be built
eventually the toxic wasteland will need to be cleaned up

if he doesn't have anything constructive to say yet just hold off

[Weitz]

Curious also to see what sort of revenue share there will be with the city since they will contribute money/own the buildings.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Some people are such homers. This idea frickin sucks. Give the flames a new stadium and deal with the rest of the issues on their own. This complex won't turn Calgary into New York or make us any more world class. What a joke, Ken king has that feasted complex and thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. Spouting these stupid reasons for why we need to do this the way he is proposing.

Day ruined

You'd put this in Balzac to make it "simple" wouldn't you?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

$250m from ticket buyers is not from the taxpayer.

$240m in CRL is not from general tax revenues, but specifically from the taxes paid by property owners in the West Village.

Only the $200m comes from general revenues, and that was the money the city was planning to spend on the fieldhouse anyway.

How are those not from the taxpayers?

I see 690M taxpayer dollars, the ticket tax and CRL are just suggested financing schemes for 490M of it (and the 200M for the fieldhouse is unfunded at present).

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by Hackey

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.

Can't thank in this thread for whatever reason but yes, this was my point. The Stamps base will be higher with a better venue so capacity for future growth should be considered.

[greyshep]

Was really hoping they would keep the hockey arena seating closer to 20k. I am with those that fear the finished product of the arena will suffer due to being attached to a multi-use facility.

And where is everyone going to park?? (Maybe already asked)

[Aleks]

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?

Well, there would be a few things to draw. Like the multi use field house for starters, I like living close to a rec center for obvious reasons. Gives me activities, keeps me fit. Theres also the influx of bars and restaurants in the area, not just in the arena. Theres also the clean up and overall beautification of the surrounding land. You've got a really short and narrow sighted view of the entire project, arena aside (which is what we're all here for, no?)

Think of east village as well, fort calgary was a homeless infested crap hole (trust me, I work down there), they cleaned it up, they use it for regular events, it draws people. They cleaned up the river bank. They made it more "people friendly". The proposed shops, condos, general lifestyle touches. The pedestrian bridge to the island. All of that draws people, developers, and such. But it took something to kick the vision into gear, the first step.

Is this ambitious? Absolutely.. Will this be an improvement over what is one of the ugliest plots of waterfront land in the city? Undeniably. And you bet I'd love to live close by

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Because it's also a fieldhouse and critical for getting city funding

I get that, but what would be the cost of the Fieldhouse/Stadium? Would it be over $200 million? There has to be more reasonable options that the city can offer if the Flames are just looking to build a stadium.

[dino7c]

how much money in tax dollars will the city collect in the area vs. what they collect now...there are so many factors but the second you say public money people cry foul

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Parallex

How are those not from the taxpayers?

The ticket ‘tax’ is from people who buy tickets at events. I've covered this earlier, but you evidently didn't read it. Those tickets will sell for whatever the market can bear. A percentage of that will go to pay for the project. If the ticket tax did not exist, that would not make the tickets any cheaper.

I see 690M taxpayer dollars, the ticket tax and CRL are just suggested financing schemes for 490M of it (and the 200M for the fieldhouse is unfunded at present).

The ticket ‘tax’ is not a tax in the normal sense; if you don't use the facility, you will never pay a dollar of it. If the entire project were privately funded, ticket buyers would still be paying that money, but amortizing the cost of the building would be a purely internal exercise on the owner's books.

Perhaps you think that if the building is never built, that somehow the $250m in ticket tax will magically appear out of nowhere anyway? That would be the only scenario (other than bankruptcy with a total loss of assets) in which the city is actually on the hook for that particular chunk of money.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dino7c

how much money in tax dollars will the city collect in the area vs. what they collect now...there are so many factors but the second you say public money people cry foul

At the moment, they basically collect nothing in tax on the site. They get a bit of rent from Greyhound, GSL and Renfrew; I don't know how much, but it's got to be tiny compared to the property taxes that would be paid on high-density development.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by dino7c

how much money in tax dollars will the city collect in the area vs. what they collect now...there are so many factors but the second you say public money people cry foul

I'd like to see a discounted cash flow comparing projected property tax receipts in the area upon redevelopment (less costs borne by the City) against the status quo.

Then we can see whether this make sense to the taxpayer.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The ticket ‘tax’ is from people who buy tickets at events. I've covered this earlier, but you evidently didn't read it. Those tickets will sell for whatever the market can bear. A percentage of that will go to pay for the project. If the ticket tax did not exist, that would not make the tickets any cheaper.

Wait, I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding that funding chart.

They need that money up front. It's not like a 20 year operational budget.

The ticket ‘tax’ is not a tax in the normal sense; if you don't use the facility, you will never pay a dollar of it. If the entire project were privately funded, ticket buyers would still be paying that money, but amortizing the cost of the building would be a purely internal exercise on the owner's books.

Absolutely. And the privately funded owners would shoulder the risk that the project is a complete disaster, and that maybe they lose money every year cuz they can't sell enough tickets to people wanting to use the fieldhouse.

Right now, the City fronts the 250M (you're not understanding this), and then recoups it through ticket tax (this part you have it right). That 250M is a very large loan and a large liability on our city. It has significant risk - if oil continues to stay low, or maybe Gaudreau/Monahan/Brodie/Hamilton all have career ending injuries, it's very possible that the complex is not break-even.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I would like to ride naked on a unicorn its not gonna happen...as usual people want a stadium but don't want to pay for it

check the cost to the individual taxpayer, less than a trip up to Edmonton to see Bieber

You realize you live in a city where proposals to increase taxes by $20 a household per year to pay for snow removal aroused a firestorm of protest and barely made it through council, right?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Wait, I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding that funding chart.

They need that money up front. It's not like a 20 year operational budget.



Absolutely. And the privately funded owners would shoulder the risk that the project is a complete disaster, and that maybe they lose money every year cuz they can't sell enough tickets to people wanting to use the fieldhouse.

Right now, the City fronts the 250M (you're not understanding this), and then recoups it through ticket tax (this part you have it right). That 250M is a very large loan and a large liability on our city. It has significant risk - if oil continues to stay low, or maybe Gaudreau/Monahan/Brodie/Hamilton all have career ending injuries, it's very possible that the complex is not break-even.

We don't know if the city fronts the ticket tax money.

[shutout]

Originally Posted by Benched

and he ducks it hard.

Why would the city get any of the revenue generated?

CSE is a tenant in the building. They would pay a proper annual lease amount for the building. That is the revenue the city gets. The business revenue generated by CSE belongs to CSE.

If you have a business and lease out a shop, are you sharing your business revenue with your landlord? No. You pay a lease amount and that is the landlords revenue.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

At the moment, they basically collect nothing in tax on the site. They get a bit of rent from Greyhound, GSL and Renfrew; I don't know how much, but it's got to be tiny compared to the property taxes that would be paid on high-density development.

True. But if the city went ahead with only high-density residential development in the area, and nixed the arena-stadium complex, they would make more money in taxes.