[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Parallex

That's not the right way to look at it... you have to look at it compared to theorhetical alternative development plans not the state at present.

Stadiums and arenas don't offer the most economic benefit to a city; we don't need to compare it to other possible uses. Staples center is a rare exception.

However, Calgary could become the only major city in Canada (and the wider continent) without a modern football and hockey facility.

So we either do it, knowing we could spend taxpayer money in a better way, or not do it, and be proud of the fact Calgary is fiscally responsible, but lacking modern facilities.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by dino7c

they haven't cleaned up the land for what 70 years...if this doesn't force their hand what will?

They haven't needed to!

There are so many areas of downtown/beltline/east village to build upon. Why dilute the whole shebang by adding a new area for residential/commercial development.

[Southside]

Originally Posted by calf

I wonder if instead of a retractable roof, they could have large windows that allow at least some fresh air into the stadium.

That wasn't mentioned or questioned. King did say it's the same manufacturer as for the Vikings project though and others have said that is an option for that stadium.

[Cappy]

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/0...n-public-cash/

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Then you honestly don't understand how a CRL works. I thank my lucky stars you have zero say in the decision to fund this.

I did not know you were an expert on CRLs.

What taxes are currently brought in from this area?
How much will be brought in by the new taxes, which do not currently exist?
How much new revenue, which does not currently exist, will there be after the CRL apportionment to the construction is covered?
How much of this tax revenue will be required for the operation of sites?

For example, and all numbers are 100% made up, and used for illustrative purposes only.

Current tax revenue from the area: $10MM per year.
Current costs required to service area: $5MM per year.
Net benefit to City: $5MM per year.

New tax revenue from area: $100MM per year.
New costs to service the aea: $50MM per year.
CRL Allocation: $25MM per year.
Net Benefit to City: $25MM per year for the first ten years.
$50MM per year for the next X number of years.

We do not know the numbers above, at all. But, if the numbers are run, and look like that, I see that as a net benefit to the City, and bringing in new money.
But, as you said, I don't understand how a CRL works.

I am also glad you have no say in the matter.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Stadiums and arenas don't offer the most economic benefit to a city; we don't need to compare it to other possible uses. Staples center is a rare exception.

However, Calgary could become the only major city in Canada (and the wider continent) without a modern football and hockey facility.

So we either do it, knowing we could spend taxpayer money in a better way, or not do it, and be proud of the fact Calgary is fiscally responsible, but lacking modern facilities.

Nothing is stopping the Flames from funding their own arena like they did in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Our civic pride isn't attached to our ability to fund team owners.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Parallex

That's not the right way to look at it... you have to look at it compared to theorhetical alternative development plans not the state at present.

You mean the theoretical alternative development plan of no one developing the land because of the high cost of cleaning up the contamination, so the land sits as is for another 70 years? How much tax revenue does the city generate from that again?

[Hockeyguy15]

Another reason I think the Flames went with this multiplex is because finding land with a central location is going to be nearly impossible. King said that moving to the suburbs is certain death, so where else can they put anything other than the west village? I highly doubt that Stampede park would be willing to give up all that land for them to build a rink, let alone the multiplex.

[DoubleF]

Revisiting the idea from yesterday, I still like the idea. But let's not get carried away, it is an idea. The renderings are not actual plans for buildings, yada, yada yada... Overall, this is not really a true plan yet. Amazing idea though.

Different from yesterday, I believe a lot of detail needs to become set in stone before I am completely satisfied that we move forward on the plan.

- Road upgrades and relocation etc.
- More plans for area use outside of normal event hours. A riverfront cultural/concession/food trucks area (Perhaps similar to Eau Claire but far smaller scale) as someone else mentioned could be interesting.
- Change in sharing of risks. CSE should take on just as much risk as City of Calgary perhaps. Whether this is ownership of assets or sharing of revenue or hybrid, should be discussed and options tossed out there to debate.
- Clarification on how this may affect fans (ie: How the tax on tickets and perhaps concession may occur)
- A project of this calibre I believe should still incorporate some local ideas. (yes I'm sticking to my guns even with the "small town thinking" and whatever else comments). Whether this is small local art spread out around in the local area or even bigger scale is one thing. But Olympic or worldwide events are brought over and there is a lot of art and whatnot completely imported from other areas of the world and very little local and Canadian art representation, I believe that is a shame that we cannot look at ourselves and have something to showcase. Whether it's a local professional or a group of SAIT students putting something together, I'd like to see a mixture of ideas if possible with the best being taken.

Arguing is fine, but belittling each other is a bit much, no? The reason the argument are so heated IMO is because of the lack of depth of information. Some of us are ok with lack of information because we imagine the filling in process will be addressed correctly. Others have no faith or are jaded and thus require a very strong set of structure (legal, plan otherwise) before they are happy. That's fine too.

But all in all, can we not treat this like a rowdy group in a bar and seemingly everyone screaming at each other half drunk with no one seemingly respecting one another? I see great debate in here and have even changed my own stance after seeing some great responses, but also have to sift through random amounts of garbage because someone can't have a discussion with someone of an opposing idea without calling someone else feeble minded etc.

[vicarious]

After seeing the plans and reading some of the comments in various places I have to say I am excited they finally came out with something. This needs to happen and it needs to happen soon.

The only thing I am disappointed about is that after almost 10 years of planning I was expecting more of a finished product in the announcement where they have addressed the various obvious issues, including having firmly nailed down the sources of funding, how to deal with the pollution at the proposed site, flood mitigation plans, transportation and parking issues, etc... Right now KK seems to believe that "if you build it they will come". I really would have liked to see this more carefully thought through but I am glad that we now have something to work with.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by nik-

Nothing is stopping the Flames from funding their own arena like they did in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Our civic pride isn't attached to our ability to fund team owners.

Aren't the Flames basically funding their own arena? $200 million of their own money, plus the $250 million ticket tax. That should cover the arena part of it.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure the Canucks didn't foot the bill for the nearly $800 million BC Place.

[haiku]

but my socks, muta
you swore this would knock them off
feet still socked, muta

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

So we either do it, knowing we could spend taxpayer money in a better way, or not do it, and be proud of the fact Calgary is fiscally responsible, but lacking modern facilities.

That's an argument one could make but dino7c was making an economic argument vs. the status quo... which is the wrong point of comparison.

[Rod Hockey]

I've seen better renderings done for washroom renovations.
As a Flames fan I’m excited for this project. As a Stamps fan I’m very disappointed in this project.
I hope both projects are built with a lot of thought into seating and how it can be designed to have a reputation of being load and in your face. The rendering for the football portion looks like a small step up from the new stadium in Fort Mac. Also no tailgating, the parking issue and being built on the floodplain. Just my 2c

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Aren't the Flames basically funding their own arena? $200 million of their own money, plus the $250 million ticket tax. That should cover the arena part of it.

It's tied into everything else though, which equals basically a billion dollars in public money. Do they even have a plan for solely a new arena if they don't get what they want? Or is that when the New Arena/Stadium playbook starts coming out again?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by T@T

The whole area already needs big improvements, if you somehow fix Bow Tr. for cheap everything will just bottleneck on Crowchild,14th St. 10th St. Etc. the first draft to fix Bow/Crowchild was a Billion smacks a couple of years ago. Moving bridges overpasses are the most expensive construction costs and it's likely the city would need to buy property as well.

Sorry, nothing can convince me this area for a project like this is worth the trouble. No bar district, no parking, brutal traffic is an easy thumbs down from me...it'll be a 900 million bore fest

You expect the Flames to build a bar district on top of the multiplex? That makes no sense.

Extra expansion comes after the deal is made and the multiplex is built. Until then what is wrong with going to Kensington/Stephen Ave and then going to the game?

As for parking, McMahon has like 700 spots where as this proposal has 1,500. There are more people going to a Stamps game than Flames game, so use that as your example of what parking will be like.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Aren't the Flames basically funding their own arena? $200 million of their own money, plus the $250 million ticket tax. That should cover the arena part of it.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure the Canucks didn't foot the bill for the nearly $800 million BC Place.

Who's funding the loan for the ticket tax and what's the interest on the loan?

Yeah...

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Another reason I think the Flames went with this multiplex is because finding land with a central location is going to be nearly impossible. King said that moving to the suburbs is certain death, so where else can they put anything other than the west village? I highly doubt that Stampede park would be willing to give up all that land for them to build a rink, let alone the multiplex.

they want it because they can scam a free football stadium out of calgarians under the disguise of a "fieldhouse". The truth is if the city of calgary even does want to build one, it can build it anywhere in the city and do whatever design and cost they want, not just the oh look it's a football stadium design the flames proposed.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Who's funding the loan for the ticket tax and what's the interest on the loan?

Yeah...

As far as I know this hasn't been determined yet.

[nik-]

And how long will the loan take to pay back? What's the ticket tax going to be?

A $10 ticket tax per ticket for every flames game is less than $10 million a year. So 25 years to pay this back and that assumes they go as high as $10 tax per ticket, which they likely won't.