[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Red Slinger]

Were there any municiple or provincial subsidies for recent large private constructions project in Calgary like the Bow or was it all privately funded?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I think everyone for or against the current iteration of the proposal can agree: the Dome and McMahon are outdated, and expensive to reno, and would totally make sense to build new locations for them, and yes, the cost savings of building together makes sense. But the amount of public funding involved in building new stadiums (essentially) exclusively for private enterprise is sheer madness.

And that's excluding any provincial costs of remediation of the site.

You go look on the internet, and find one good article where taxpayers have won by heavily subsidizing (through whatever mechanism they want to call it) an arena? It effectively never ends well in this high cost day and age.

I believe there is one about the Columbus revitalization, I'll look for it.

However either way I don't have a problem with your contention at all. And I appreciate the lack of knee jerk hyperbole in the argument. You don't believe in tax dollars in private buildings but you stopped short of calling the owners greedy etc.

[Red Menace]

Honest question: Have any major sports buildings in the last 20 years been paid for primarily by ownership?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I believe there is one about the Columbus revitalization, I'll look for it.

However either way I don't have a problem with your contention at all. And I appreciate the lack of knee jerk hyperbole in the argument. You don't believe in tax dollars in private buildings but you stopped short of calling the owners greedy etc.

The Columbus arena and the surrounding entertainment district were heavily, heavily studied in the early days of this pursuit.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

Honest question: Have any major sports buildings in the last 20 years been paid for primarily by ownership?

Air Canada Centre, Bell Centre, Rogers Arena.

[Tinordi]

Also it's not a fact that the building needs to be replaced, it's a frame.

The Flames aren't losing money because the building. They're still very solvent. Fans still go in droves to the game. There is little in the way of need for a new building it's just a big want for some fans and the owners.

That's the starting point. If the owners want a new arena to grow their revenue then great, pay for it yourself.

The second annoying argument is the conflation of the land remediation with the arena. The land remediation will happen when it makes economic sense to do so. The city can sell the land net of the remediation costs and still come out much further ahead than building an arena on it that wont pay back any taxes. This is another frame. That all of a sudden, cleaning up that land is a huge public policy priority. Did anyone in the city care prior to 2 months ago that the area needs to be cleaned up before it is developed? No. Why so now?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I believe there is one about the Columbus revitalization, I'll look for it.

However either way I don't have a problem with your contention at all. And I appreciate the lack of knee jerk hyperbole in the argument. You don't believe in tax dollars in private buildings but you stopped short of calling the owners greedy etc.

On the McMahon side, I just don't see why a tier 2 league, who plays 9 home games a year NEEDS a new building. It serves its purpose just fine.

This is coming from a season ticket holder who attends probably 6-9 games a year and loves the CFL.

There are college stadiums in the U.S. that are much older and hold more people and it works and works well.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is another frame. That all of a sudden, cleaning up that land is a huge public policy priority. Did anyone in the city care prior to 2 months ago that the area needs to be cleaned up before it is developed? No. Why so now?

Not true actually

Diane Colley-Urquhart said it's been an issue since 2009 when Bronconier bought it with an eye towards development. Then they started to realize the cost and the uphill battle to get it done.

The Flames are plugging into a plan that the city had already envisioned including the CRL.

I think the question is the size of the project and if its size takes away too great a percentage of the land mass hurting collection for the CRL.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Air Canada Centre, Bell Centre, Rogers Arena.

Ottawa was as well, except for about a $25 M loan from province, so.

The ACC is the only real success story though.

The other three buildings were all sold at huge losses to the owners, compared to cost of building.
Bell sold @ $170M loss (Sold for 100M, cost to build of 270M)
Rogers sold @ $90M loss (Sold for 70Mish, cost to build of 160M)
Ottawa sold @ $143M loss (Sold for 27M, cost to build of 170M)

I do understand that was a different landscape in the NHL, but still.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Ottawa was as well, except for about a $25 M loan from province, so.

The ACC is the only real success story though.

The other three buildings were all sold at huge losses to the owners, compared to cost of building.
Bell sold @ $170M loss (Sold for 100M, cost to build of 270M)
Rogers sold @ $90M loss (Sold for 70Mish, cost to build of 160M)
Ottawa sold @ $143M loss (Sold for 27M, cost to build of 170M)

I do understand that was a different landscape in the NHL, but still.

And in two of those instances, financing the arena helped drive the owner into bankruptcy and led to the team being sold.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

On the McMahon side, I just don't see why a tier 2 league, who plays 9 home games a year NEEDS a new building. It serves its purpose just fine.

This is coming from a season ticket holder who attends probably 6-9 games a year and loves the CFL.

There are college stadiums in the U.S. that are much older and hold more people and it works and works well.

That's true, but the long-term plans are bigger than just CFL. MLS, Olympics, World Cup, musical performances... these are opportunities that Calgary will be looking at and need to be ready for. McMahon just doesn't serve the purposes to handle these new, larger events anymore.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Also it's not a fact that the building needs to be replaced, it's a frame.

The Flames aren't losing money because the building. They're still very solvent. Fans still go in droves to the game. There is little in the way of need for a new building it's just a big want for some fans and the owners.

That's the starting point. If the owners want a new arena to grow their revenue then great, pay for it yourself.

The second annoying argument is the conflation of the land remediation with the arena. The land remediation will happen when it makes economic sense to do so. The city can sell the land net of the remediation costs and still come out much further ahead than building an arena on it that wont pay back any taxes. This is another frame. That all of a sudden, cleaning up that land is a huge public policy priority. Did anyone in the city care prior to 2 months ago that the area needs to be cleaned up before it is developed? No. Why so now?

I agree with your first point, but I am not so sure on the second. KK was pretty clear that he thought the CalgaryNEXT initiative could be a facilitator in getting the province and the city to get started on the clean up. Without a scheme of this scope, the city/province could remain in a stalemate, as the province indemnifies the city for creosote issues, so long as they don't dig up the site. That is a recipe for inaction if I ever saw one. I am not sure selling the land net of remediation costs would work well either. Is the city going to sell it for negative $197 million? Is that not a subsidy to the ultimate purchaser?

I have been saying for a while, that more focus needs to be spent on the purchase greenlit by Bronco in 2009. Did they do any due diligence? Did they simply ignore that due diligence? If there was no priority to clean up the site, why did they buy the land? How did they manage to negotiate an indemnity on the creosote problem, but only until they develop the site? What the hell good does that do?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Muta

The Columbus arena and the surrounding entertainment district were heavily, heavily studied in the early days of this pursuit.

It's unfortunate though that none of the great aspects of arena districts seem present in this site design.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

On the McMahon side, I just don't see why a tier 2 league, who plays 9 home games a year NEEDS a new building. It serves its purpose just fine.

That's fair enough, though I'm not sure the stamps games are the only reason for having a stadium.

How much older/crappier does it have to get before it's worth replacing in your eyes? Old like the corral? Never - as long as it's not going to collapse and they keep up basic maintenance and improvements?

For me it's already past the point where I have no interest in going to McMahon. But you go more than I suspect I ever will, so I'm curious your take on it.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bunk

It's unfortunate though that none of the great aspects of arena districts seem present in this site design.

I'm going to have to agree with you here. Let's wait until some more finalized designs come through though - as you know Bunk, these things can change greatly as the project moves along. We are in the very early stages.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm going to have to agree with you here. Let's wait until some more finalized designs come through though - as you know Bunk, these things can change greatly as the project moves along. We are in the very early stages.

I'll be honest with you Muta, with how you talked up the plans and design before, I was pretty surprised at the rather low-quality visuals that were released. All these years of work with an international level architectural firm involved, and all they showed us was fairly thin and somewhat amateurish renderings that looked barely above massing studies (that some have implied were done by UofC architectural students)?

What the hell happened?! What I saw didn't look like something a professional architectural firm like your company would release. There's some kind of disconnect there.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not true actually

Diane Colley-Urquhart said it's been an issue since 2009 when Bronconier bought it with an eye towards development. Then they started to realize the cost and the uphill battle to get it done.

The Flames are plugging into a plan that the city had already envisioned including the CRL.

I think the question is the size of the project and if its size takes away too great a percentage of the land mass hurting collection for the CRL.

The City envisioned CRL in West Village?

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

That's fair enough, though I'm not sure the stamps games are the only reason for having a stadium.

How much older/crappier does it have to get before it's worth replacing in your eyes? Old like the corral? Never - as long as it's not going to collapse and they keep up basic maintenance and improvements?

For me it's already past the point where I have no interest in going to McMahon. But you go more than I suspect I ever will, so I'm curious your take on it.

I go a decent amount too. A new stadium for the stamps would be nice, but I honestly don't know if it would impact if I go more or not. My complaints about McMahon are usually more about how hard it is to actually spend money there (cash only for most food, 2 ATMs, limited food options, etc.) if there were more options to spend money that would just benefit the owners but in terms of the actual football that usually depends on if I have other plans or not. There is maybe 10% of games I miss on purely weather reasons (early season game and it's pissing rain and I don't care enough to go) but again that's not generally going to massively change with a closed stadium.

Honestly if the Flames would just do some renos to McMahon to improve the concourse and refurb the washrooms and update the payment systems to 20th century technology, they'd extract a lot more money from me each game. That's on them. I have no idea why they don't seem to understand how much money they are leaving on the table from fans each game. Do that stuff and I don't see why you couldn't get at least another 15 years from that place. It will never be a destination stadium, but it's totally serviceable for the CFL with a few updates.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'll be honest with you Muta, with how you talked up the plans and design before, I was pretty surprised at the rather low-quality visuals that were released. All these years of work with an international level architectural firm involved, and all they showed us was fairly thin and somewhat amateurish renderings that looked barely above massing studies (that some have implied were done by UofC architectural students)?

What the hell happened?! What I saw didn't look like something a professional architectural firm like your company would release. There's some kind of disconnect there.

Well I didn't design the thing. I'm not even involved with that. It's the size, scope and vision of the project that I implied were impressive. I've also seen other iterations, not just the one that was shown. Design is your own interpretation, too, and I'll leave that up to the individual.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Muta

It's the size, scope and vision of the project that I implied were impressive.

Without intending to specifically direct this at you, as I was very happy to get your updates when available, I do have to say the above is what leaves me a bit confused. I also apologize if I'm treading over covered ground as I've not read this whole thread. Based on what everyone involved was saying, KK especially, and the tidbits we got from the leaks, I don't think it's wrong to suggest that this seems a bit underwhelming. What we have in front of us now is the absolute bare minimum that I would have expected this project to include. All of the funding issues and contamination issues and pure political issues aside, I'm wondering if I'm missing something on why this is so impressive. It's one building with an arena and a convertible field house. No details on how the arena design might be beyond state of the art, no details on their vision for the waterfront and integration with the community. Just a lot of "yadda yadda that will come" and hand waving over the renderings being early. I mean, I do know a bit about development work, and given they started talking new arena in 2006-2007 or so, I just don't really understand what the reason for revealing this was at this stage. They could have shown this off 4 years ago as I'm sure they knew everything they've told us then. Or they could have gotten further in the planning stages and tried to use the wow factor of what the buildings would actually look like and function like to try and sell the public. This is some weird limp in between.