New Edmonton Arena Construction will begin in March 2014

[Tinordi]

Often these urban "revitalization" projects centered around an arena are the result of determined policy and ambtions of government. What's my point? Well that you don't need an arena to arrive to those same outcomes so long as government is willing to lead.

Dockside green in Victoria saw a revitalization of its old industrial district in Vic West because the city and various champions wanted to build a sustainable community. It's been, for the most part, a big success.

Calgary's east side revitalization is happening without an arena.

The key input is most often not some arena to plonk down, I mean look at GM place in Vancouver there's basically nothing in direct vicinity of there even with significant amounts of underutilized round in the vicinity. Meanwhile, Vancouver has prioritized revitalization of a number of areas around coal harbour and false creek to varying degrees of success. The biggest example, is the city and provincial/federal governments building the Canada Line. At the sound end of the line a huge privately funded neighborhoud concept (Marine Gateway) is being built by sole virtue of a mass transit stop now located there. The Canada Line came at significant cost but is already well exceeding its ridership targets years early. Many many Vancouverites and Richmonders are benefitting directly from this type of public investment. Many more than retrofitting BC Place I (and most others) would argue.

What matters is ambition and policy from the political sphere, not where you have an excuse to plonk an arena down somewhere.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This discussion reminds me of Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow. In that book Kahneman says that we perceive the world based on a simple fact that what you see is all there is. Going to Ciampa's point that San Diego saw building revitalization around their stadium this effect is in full force. Sure we see those buildings and teh revitalization and then think that that was good because there was a stadium there. What we don't do is ask what would have happened had we not built the stadium and used the tax money say for tax credits for land development in other areas of the city, or for transit improvements along a corridor etc. where we likely have seen the same revitalizing effect only adding to the public good not to private owners of sports franchises.

edit: I highly highly recommend this book

I almost fell over laughing when I saw that you included this in a post that derides government subsidies that benefit private owners. As someone who has worked in low income housing tax credits I can assure that there are plenty of private owners making millions hand over fist in the land development tax credit game.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Often these urban "revitalization" projects centered around an arena are the result of determined policy and ambtions of government. What's my point? Well that you don't need an arena to arrive to those same outcomes so long as government is willing to lead.

Dockside green in Victoria saw a revitalization of its old industrial district in Vic West because the city and various champions wanted to build a sustainable community. It's been, for the most part, a big success.

Calgary's east side revitalization is happening without an arena.

The key input is most often not some arena to plonk down, I mean look at GM place in Vancouver there's basically nothing in direct vicinity of there even with significant amounts of underutilized round in the vicinity. Meanwhile, Vancouver has prioritized revitalization of a number of areas around coal harbour and false creek to varying degrees of success. The biggest example, is the city and provincial/federal governments building the Canada Line. At the sound end of the line a huge privately funded neighborhoud concept (Marine Gateway) is being built by sole virtue of a mass transit stop now located there. The Canada Line came at significant cost but is already well exceeding its ridership targets years early. Many many Vancouverites and Richmonders are benefitting directly from this type of public investment. Many more than retrofitting BC Place I (and most others) would argue.

What matters is ambition and policy from the political sphere, not where you have an excuse to plonk an arena down somewhere.

Kind if interesting that it likely never would have happened without a sporting event taking place in a bunch of stadiums nearby.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by valo403

Kind if interesting that it likely never would have happened without a sporting event taking place in a bunch of stadiums nearby.

This is an excellent point. The city should focus on the infrastructure that benefits citizens, like mass transit and the owners should focus on the infrastructure that benefits them, like the stadium. If the two need each other to take off then great do it. But don't compromise on who funds what.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by valo403

I almost fell over laughing when I saw that you included this in a post that derides government subsidies that benefit private owners. As someone who has worked in low income housing tax credits I can assure that there are plenty of private owners making millions hand over fist in the land development tax credit game.

Sure credits may not be the best example, it could be deferred development charges should the city prioritize the redevelopment in an area. It could be that the city steps up and pays for better transit access to that area. My point, which was lost in the weeds, is that the presence of an arena is certainly not the key ingredient to incentivize urban revitalization.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by valo403

Kind if interesting that it likely never would have happened without a sporting event taking place in a bunch of stadiums nearby.

That says more about political culture than it does the necessity of pro-sports to drive development.

The richmond skytrain planning had been underway almost directly following expo 86 (aka, after the first skytrain line), and began serious consideration in the early to mid 90s.

Federal and provincial government funding was in place prior to the Olympic bid.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by valo403

I almost fell over laughing when I saw that you included this in a post that derides government subsidies that benefit private owners. As someone who has worked in low income housing tax credits I can assure that there are plenty of private owners making millions hand over fist in the land development tax credit game.

So incentivizing the private sector to build unprofitable housing for a basic, social need is the same as building an arena used for cultural purposes and disposal income?

I get it that on its face it is hypocritical. But one is a basic need that goes unfilfilled and isn't viable as a project without government incentive.

The other is simply corporate welfare pitting one tax jurisdiction against another.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is an excellent point. The city should focus on the infrastructure that benefits citizens, like mass transit and the owners should focus on the infrastructure that benefits them, like the stadium. If the two need each other to take off then great do it. But don't compromise on who funds what.

The arena provides a launching off point for the new Edmonton North LRT line and it in turn will be partially funded by the CRL which is created as a result of the arena district.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

So incentivizing the private sector to build unprofitable housing for a basic, social need is the same as building an arena used for cultural purposes and disposal income?

I get it that on its face it is hypocritical. But one is a basic need that goes unfilfilled and isn't viable as a project without government incentive.

The other is simply corporate welfare pitting one tax jurisdiction against another.

Are cultural purposes not basic social needs? I think you'd find plenty of people that argue that they are.

The point of my comment is that you can't point at one thing as being unacceptable because it provides the means for private businesses to reap massive profits on one hand and yet find it perfectly okay on the other. If you have additional reasons for supporting one over the other fine, but that rationale is out the window if we're talking tax credits.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

I think because people can closely identify with hockey that they feel the need to speak up in these situations. The fact is, governments give handouts and develop infrastructure to help private businesses all the time.

The 23 ave overpass / 19 ave flyover in Edmonton is a great example of that. The flyover was built solely to benefit businesses in South Edmonton Common. Total cost of the project was $260 million.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmo.../15113981.html

Meanwhile, someone who lives in North Edmonton is paying for this even though they will likely never use it.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by valo403

Are cultural purposes not basic social needs? I think you'd find plenty of people that argue that they are.

The point of my comment is that you can't point at one thing as being unacceptable because it provides the means for private businesses to reap massive profits on one hand and yet find it perfectly okay on the other. If you have additional reasons for supporting one over the other fine, but that rationale is out the window if we're talking tax credits.

Sure it is a basic need but at risk of rehash, I'd argue in the hierarchy of finite public dollars, funding public housing comes before cultural institution like libraries or museums and certainly before a company worth hundreds of millions of dollars that is fully capable of self financing.

Also I'm assuming these land deals become Section 8 housing which are difficult to manage, have more regulation and less profitable for the owner assuming they have to stay on as landlords to get the full credit.

It is certainly less glamourous to deal with backed up toilets than with these state of the art arenas with Madonna or the Flames as your tenants.

....Then again it is the Oilers we're talking about.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I think because people can closely identify with hockey that they feel the need to speak up in these situations. The fact is, governments give handouts and develop infrastructure to help private businesses all the time.

The 23 ave overpass / 19 ave flyover in Edmonton is a great example of that. The flyover was built solely to benefit businesses in South Edmonton Common. Total cost of the project was $260 million.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmo.../15113981.html

Meanwhile, someone who lives in North Edmonton is paying for this even though they will likely never use it.

According to that article, that project was to help fix the most accident prone intersection in Edmonton. I'm guessing it doesn't just benefit the businesses but also anyone who drives in that area. Doesn't the road to the airport go through that intersection? Do people in North Edmonton not drive to the airport?

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

And really, that's what you need to truly revitalize the core. Arena creates activity around it (bars/restaurants) which makes it more of a destination, condos get built, more bars and restaurants and shopping get built as demand for services increase, more condos and office towers get built and the cycle goes on.

Why did the area around Rexall never become more of a destination when it was built?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

Why did the area around Rexall never become more of a destination when it was built?

Because it was built in the wrong city

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

According to that article, that project was to help fix the most accident prone intersection in Edmonton. I'm guessing it doesn't just benefit the businesses but also anyone who drives in that area. Doesn't the road to the airport go through that intersection? Do people in North Edmonton not drive to the airport?

23 ave, sure. You didn't need the 19 ave flyover to South Edmonton Common though. That's the big cost. Most overpasses don't cost $260 million.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

Why did the area around Rexall never become more of a destination when it was built?

It's not in the core. Like I said, you need an arena to be downtown for it to truly work because really in the end it's not the arena which creates the desired economic activity and spinoff revenue. The arena provides a catalyst which leads to condos and office towers and the cycle goes from there.

[nfotiu]

You know, I think of all the Canadian and American arenas and stadiums I've been to, and I can't think of an arena that really has a thriving housing, restaurant or bar scene right nearby. They all have a few sports bars and restaurants, bit usually nothing special. In fact the stadium, parking lot and mass transit structures are usually huge behemoths that kind of overtake the area and make the whole area not very friendly for walkers, etc.

When I go back to Calgary and Edmonton lately, I am always surprised to see that everyone still works downtown. The trend in the us seems to be more and more to telecommuting and suburban offices. I wonder if that trend will spread to the Alberta cities over the decade. As such, more and more of our entertainment and nightlife has moved to the suburbs, and the downtown arenas are making less and less sense.

[theg69]

I live in Edmonton so I am a little more familiar with that particular situation. The whole problem with the cost issue is because city council delayed on that overpass for several years, and with the delay the cost skyrocketed. I don't remember the exact numbers but they could've saved money if they would've just built it in the first place.

That intersection was considered a "black eye" for Edmonton. It was the most accident prone intersection in the city, as well as subject to horrendous traffic during rush hour. City council even went so far as to say it was hurting tourism because that was the first intersection people would see visiting Edmonton (before the Henday was built).

I disagree when people say that this intersection did not affect people who lived in the North end. It was a city issue, not just a south Edmonton issue.

As for the arena, the outrage is not so much at the arena itself, I am sure all Edmontonians would not mind having a new arena, but it has been the way the deal has been negotiated by Mr. Katz. First, our city council was a dead duck at the beginning, essentially agreeing with all the initial proposals (even that 100 million dollar gap that they were going to pull from funds slated for "infrastructure use"). The initial joke was that Katz' lawyers bent city council over. Consequently, there was some public outrage. I mean why are our tax dollars going to a stupid arena, when you can't drive on a road without breaking your bloody car over a pothole (for people who have only lived in Calgary, you have no idea what a real pothole is). Katz is now trying to push the envelope here, going so far as to say that the Oilers will not be profitable without a new arena. So, city council, aware of any potential backlash from the public, essentially called Katz out on this claim, and that is where we stand today.
The bottom line is, Katz' lease runs out on Northland in I believe 3 years, and he is still dreaming in technicolor that he will have a new arena at that time.

For the record, I do not mind some tax dollars going into the arena, but it is absolutely ludicrous for the city to take on the bulk majority of the investment, which is what Katz is trying to do. Yes, he can sell the revitalization of the city but until you actually move the Hope mission that is smack in the middle of Chinatown a couple of blocks away, I am not sold that the arena will make it a better area. I would rather my tax money go towards more shelters, affordable housings, and programs to treat addictions to get these people off the streets.

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I think because people can closely identify with hockey that they feel the need to speak up in these situations. The fact is, governments give handouts and develop infrastructure to help private businesses all the time.

The 23 ave overpass / 19 ave flyover in Edmonton is a great example of that. The flyover was built solely to benefit businesses in South Edmonton Common. Total cost of the project was $260 million.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmo.../15113981.html

Meanwhile, someone who lives in North Edmonton is paying for this even though they will likely never use it.

[Tinordi]

So you're saying you'd rather the city spent it's tax revenue on poor and addicted people instead of a billionaire owner of a hockey team? You're a slathering disgusting communist.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

Why did the area around Rexall never become more of a destination when it was built?

Because it's Edmonton.