[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So there is no competition for the CSEC building.

Hilariously, the demo of the saddledome magically got cut in half in cost.

Ehh, not really.

The Saddledome obviously won't be competing for the Flames, Hitmen or Roughnecks. And the Saddledome already can't compete for major concerts. A lot of what does come now uses toned down rigging that most promoters won't choose to do when there is a superior alternative across the street. So what's going to be left? 12-20 events a year? The city would be losing money hand over fist operating the building at that level of usage. We're simply not large enough for two 19,000 seat arenas.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Perhaps if you were building with 100% private money.

Cost overruns will = drastic cuts. I don't see the City kicking even more money in, and I doubt CSEC would either as they don't own it.

Thats not necessarily the case, they're on the hook for 35 years of maintenance, it is conceivable that they'd put up extra money up front to reduce back-end costs, but thats a whole other story entirely.

Originally Posted by Domoic

Perhaps a dumb question - but why does the Saddledome have to be demolished in all of this? And what will go up in its place?

Thanks

Theres a few reasons, primarily to eliminate possibility of competition particularly for events. Not every artist or act needs the Prime Venue which, presumably would take a bigger cut and say that the Ol' Dome is just fine. Remember, any revenue generated by the Saddledome would no longer go to CSEC as they would no longer be affiliated with it.

And secondly, while its an iconic piece of our skyline, that unique architectural design, while aesthetically pleasing, wasnt the best structurally.

So its got a difficult design and its getting old. I'm sure insurance underwriters have its demolition day circled on their calendars with the champagne chilling.

In short, nobody wants to be responsible for this building for all that much longer.

And finally, as a secondary venue its just too big. Even if you could keep it, how could we justify having two 19,000+ capacity venues within a stone's throw of each other? The cost to maintain, staff and operate without an anchor tenant just isnt feasible.

[Hockey_Ninja]

I'm just happy it's finally happening.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Every NIMBY project Kensington has ever thought of.

By definition, people would be against projects in their own backyard if they were NIMBY. Are you thinking of projects that Kensington didn't want so they created the project proposal for other communities? So confused.

[Mass_nerder]

I'm excited that they're considering a less traditional design; I think it's important for us to build something that doesn't just feel like another generic arena.
The parti seems like the inverted bowl design requires a lot of cantilevers though; my boss just dropped this on me yesterday

"Cantilever (Noun) – Gravity-defying overhang favored by students and architects with infinite budgets."

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Could there be a 20 year ban on giving naming rights to Rogers or Scotiabank? I know the oil companies are hurting now, but maybe give them a discount so we don't end up with another boring name.

It's going to be either a bank or a telco. There's really not much else in this country willing to drop that much money. That, unfortunately, is why they are only anticipating $2.5 million in naming rights per year. Scotiabank is paying $20 million in Toronto. Though only $1 million for the Saddledome.

[Fuzz]

While I really like the concept of the inverted bowl, it is a very big risk being the first one. It's probably unlikely, but could this turn into a total debacle, and the actual results not being nearly as good as promised, with a whole host of issues that don't turn up in the design phase?


Of course, it could also be the greatest thing since the wheel.

[Cappy]

This deal is extremely close in percentage terms to the Edmonton arena deal.... one we all laughed at. Hard to see this as a “win”

Also, one week to decide? Laughable

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Cappy

This deal is extremely close in percentage terms to the Edmonton arena deal.... one we all laughed at. Hard to see this as a “win”

Also, one week to decide? Laughable

Is it the same % wise (I honestly haven't followed)? Also, how does one "win" at this, and what's considered a win vs. the Edmonton deal? Getting the same amount of government funding, less funding? And why would it be a win if we got more or less? I'm confused just in general about the statement around the Edmonton rink and how that influenced the desired outcome down here?

[Flash Walken]

The right of first refusal for adjacent property development to Flames ownership makes this a slam dunk from their perspective.

This feels actually very similar to the Edmonton deal.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

While I really like the concept of the inverted bowl, it is a very big risk being the first one. It's probably unlikely, but could this turn into a total debacle, and the actual results not being nearly as good as promised, with a whole host of issues that don't turn up in the design phase?


Of course, it could also be the greatest thing since the wheel.

Nah, if the Clippers are going for it in Inglewood before us I'm comfortable. LA/New York projects tend to turn into marvels more often than debacles.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's probably unlikely, but could this turn into a total debacle, and the actual results not being nearly as good as promised, with a whole host of issues that don't turn up in the design phase?

It's not such an extreme design concept that the building would literally fail.
I could see it not living up the high expectations that Rossetti's hype video sets though.
In their parti, it suggests that each upper level only has a few rows of seating, but I can't imagine there will be less than 10-15 rows, so the back few rows may not have great views of the jumbotron, or the underside of the roof, which they seem to be suggesting would be used to project info/video/graphics on.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Nah, if the Clippers are going for it in Inglewood before us I'm comfortable. LA/New York projects tend to turn into marvels more often than debacles.

I've been reading up on it a bit this morning. And right now, they have NIMBYs are suing to try and prevent that arena from happening. There's actually an excellent chance at this point that we will be first. Assuming, of course, we go with this design.

[Cappy]

[QUOTE=Cleveland Steam Whistle;7167864]Is it the same % wise (I honestly haven't followed)? Also, how does one "win" at this, and what's considered a win vs. the Edmonton deal? Getting the same amount of government funding, less funding? And why would it be a win if we got more or less? I'm confused just in general about the statement around the Edmonton rink and how that influenced the desired outcome down here

Not sure why my statement didnt make sense but I suppose a “win” would be the city getting better terms than the Edmonton deal. I’m not out of line saying this board, and most people in Alberta, thought the city of Edmonton got hoodwinked in their deal with Katz.

A lot of people are calling this deal a “win” for the city, which given our past snickering at the Edmonton deal, it’s hard to see this one as a better deal.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Is it the same % wise (I honestly haven't followed)?

Not really, no.



Rogers Place Deal

$279M from City (+$25M from 'other government sources)- 50%
$125M from ticket tax - 22%
$160M from team (in cash and as lease payments) - 28%


This one, to break it down similarly

$120M from City - 22%
$155M from ticket tax - 28%
$275M from team (also acts as lease payment) - 50%

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Cappy

This deal is extremely close in percentage terms to the Edmonton arena deal.... one we all laughed at. Hard to see this as a “win”

Also, one week to decide? Laughable

It is not close at all. The city of Edmonton and it's taxpayers put up almost 75% of the funding and gave the Katz group ridiculous rights to land development and profits associated to the area. Katz only put up shy of $20M to build the arena and the city was left with the rest. Paying $100M rent over 35 years to make up the rest of his meager contribution is completely laughable.

I have been against public funding for this building in Calgary, but I can at least see the logic here as we have fought for a more fair deal and should recoup our investment over time. The 35 year agreement is also a fantastic safeguard against any sort of shenanigans on the part of the ownership group. The same surely cannot be said for Edmonton. Sucks to be them.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

While I really like the concept of the inverted bowl, it is a very big risk being the first one. It's probably unlikely, but could this turn into a total debacle, and the actual results not being nearly as good as promised, with a whole host of issues that don't turn up in the design phase?


Of course, it could also be the greatest thing since the wheel.

One thing is for sure, it will take less time to build than a garage.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It's going to be either a bank or a telco. There's really not much else in this country willing to drop that much money. That, unfortunately, is why they are only anticipating $2.5 million in naming rights per year. Scotiabank is paying $20 million in Toronto. Though only $1 million for the Saddledome.

I actually think that Scotiabank pays US$32 million per year in Toronto....

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cappy

This deal is extremely close in percentage terms to the Edmonton arena deal.... one we all laughed at. Hard to see this as a “win”

Also, one week to decide? Laughable

Yeah, looking at the details I dont know where you're getting this from.

The financial split is significantly different and CSEC has been given option rights on land to be determined in the future with a required financial contribution and responsibility of both CSEC and the City

In Edmonton that land was effectively deeded over up front with a Property Tax amnesty and put entirely under control of a private enterprise except for the City's requirements to provide infrastructure at the direction of that enterprise.

This is more of a partnership to develop an area in the city.

I'm sure there are some similarities, but to basically say its the same or worse despite the CSEC putting up almost double the cash that Katz did for fewer agreements and concessions doesnt seem to jive.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It is not close at all. The city of Edmonton and it's taxpayers put up almost 75% of the funding and gave the Katz group ridiculous rights to land development and profits associated to the area. Katz only put up shy of $20M to build the arena and the city was left with the rest. Paying $100M rent over 35 years to make up the rest of his meager contribution is completely laughable.

I have been against public funding for this building in Calgary, but I can at least see the logic here as we have fought for a more fair deal and should recoup our investment over time. The 35 year agreement is also a fantastic safeguard against any sort of shenanigans on the part of the ownership group. The same surely cannot be said for Edmonton. Sucks to be them.

Fair point, I wasn’t looking at the “facility fee” as a ticket tax in the same way as the Edmonton deal included a straight up surcharge on all tickets specifically for that purpose.