Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future...

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Well of course they can, and should, build it on their own dime, but like every other organization, they will try really really hard not to. Even if they are the ones putting up the bill for the actual construction, at the very least they will ask for some form of special treatment that is worth millions... infrastructure changes, land swaps, favorable tax-structure etc.

Has there been one stadium built in North American entirely with private funds and no special favors? If there has, I haven't heard about it.

Gillette Stadium in Foxboro?

[nik-]

There was a significant "culture" shift in stadiums and arenas between the Skydome and Camden Yards. Everything built after looks so much better and stadiums built before are cold and sterile ... borderline brutalist.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Thanks?

Again though, I do think a new arena makes sense since it takes years to build, and more boxex/lower bowl seats = revenue....

Definitely. I was responding to you claim that SJ was not that much better than the Saddledome. It is even though it's only 10 years newer. It almost as though being built in the early 80s still had the 70s architectural hangover. Jump 10 years and the SAP Center is better is almost every way.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Gillette Stadium in Foxboro?

From a quick search, that stadium was indeed entirely privately funded....but the state kicked in $70 million dollars in infrastructure for new roads to the stadium. So again, special treatment.

If we have to pick one, the city/province putting money towards infrastructure is probably the most palatable way of contributing, as we get to benefit from it outside of the arena. If a new arena is a catalyst for an improved bikepath/waterfront or Bow/Crowchild improvements (West Village location) or better C-train station (Stampede location), than that wouldn't be so bad.

The only way as a taxpayer I would be okay with paying for an arena on it's own, is if I get a discount on tickets that equals (or actually betters) my contribution.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Table 5

From a quick search, that stadium was indeed entirely privately funded....but the state kicked in $70 million dollars in infrastructure for new roads to the stadium. So again, special treatment.

If we have to pick one, the city/province putting money towards infrastructure is probably the most palatable way of contributing, as we get to benefit from it outside of the arena. If a new arena is a catalyst for an improved bikepath/waterfront or Bow/Crowchild improvements (West Village location) or better C-train station (Stampede location), than that wouldn't be so bad.

The only way as a taxpayer I would be okay with paying for an arena on it's own, is if I get a discount on tickets that equals (or actually betters) my contribution.

I think that's the fairest way to approach it. Team/owners fund the actual stadium/arena and the city/province/feds upgrade the infrastructure surrounding it. Tax breaks for ownership while the city receives a hub for redevelopment (see SF Giants' ballpark and surrounding area pre and post build).

Also, Foxboro might be a different animal just because it's not an urban stadium... it not even suburban really (like the Braves soon-to-be-built stadium).

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I think that's the fairest way to approach it. Team/owners fund the actual stadium/arena and the city/province/feds upgrade the infrastructure surrounding it. Tax breaks for ownership while the city receives a hub for redevelopment (see SF Giants' ballpark and surrounding area pre and post build).

Also, Foxboro might be a different animal just because it's not an urban stadium... it not even suburban really (like the Braves soon-to-be-built stadium).

I think that we can pretty much assume there will be a CRL similar to the East Villlage for wherever the Flames have decided. Potentially more if their were to be a convention centre component.

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by macrov

The saddledome seats 19000. The new arena will seat 18000-20000

The saddledome is built near transit, and has parking on site. The new arena will be built near transit and will have parking on site.

The saddledome is close to downtown. The new arena will be close to downtown.

So...what is the difference?

The saddledome has fewer luxury boxes and more single seats. The new arena will have more luxury boxes and fewer single seats. The single seats in the new building will be more expensive because press level seating won't exist and a new arena surcharge will be added on for each ticket. As a result, attending flames games will become less affordable to the middle income fan, and more accessible to corporate workers who are more likely to be marginal fans. The games will be less loud, have less energy, and will have a worse atmosphere.

All the rest of it is bull####. More washrooms, nicer dressing rooms, nicer concourse, better sight lines. Are you seriously falling for that?

The ACC, Canadian tire center, and Bell Center all have line ups for the washroom in the intermission. The sightlines are no different for 95% of the stadium. And they have a slightly wider concourse.

the lower bowl in the dome is already pretty low energy. A new arena will make the game atmosphere worse and offers very cosmetic and marginal upgrades in return.

I would think a big driving factor behind the Flames wanting a new arena is to get away from the stampede grounds so they can get their hands on all of the parking $$$. That and more luxury boxes for more $$$.

I see your point but money talks.

[JD]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Jump 10 years and the SAP Center is better is almost every way.

But this is my point... I was there. I was unimpressed. I must have missed something, because I don't get it. That arena reminded me of a larger Prospera Place (Kelowna's arena), which is, really, kind of meh.

The only other arenas I've been to are Ottawa's and Dallas', and agreed, the Dome is light years behind those places. San Jose's though? Not in my opinion! I hope the Flames are aiming higher than that. Fortunately, clearly, they are.

[PeteMoss]

There is no economic benefit to the city/tax payers to fund the stadium in any way. Pretty much any reason that is given has been debunked. We'll see how far the Flames ownership pushes it (will they go to Katz levels of saying they might move the team?). I'm sure they'll get some kind of funding, but they should just pay for it.

[Envitro]

Ok, I've stayed out of this conversation on purpose, but I have to say something now.

Whether the 'Dome is old or not, whether there are better arenas or not elsewhere, Flames leadership and owners have stated that they have been planning a new arena for the last 3+ years.

This is the part that drives me crazy as a fan and STH. Sure, do whatever you want behind closed doors and plan as long as you need. But to go 2 or more years without communicating any kind of details or high level plans to your customers is just not cool.

Yes, of course, let the idiots up in Edmonton do all the heavy political lifting. I have no problem with that. But at least tell us what the frontrunner locations are, or what the design may or may NOT include.

Why the secrecy at this point? It has been 3 years since it was announced that they will be building a new arena and we are left hanging in the wind, relying on random rumours and postings on SSP (not to mention some freaking Discovery channel show) to give us some hint of what's happening.

This is bull#### and I blame KK

[Senator Clay Davis]

The thing is the NHL and by extension the Flames, don't have a massive leverage chip to try and get a taxpayer funded arena. Are they really going to leave Calgary, a guaranteed profitable market for Seattle or Kansas City, iffy propositions? I don't see it.

The NFL meanwhile has a massive leverage chip that they continue to use, including right now with the St. Louis Rams: Los Angeles. Any time the NFL wants to exploit taxpayers, its all about threatening to move the team to Los Angeles. The Chargers and Raiders can look forward to the same charade in the coming years, even if the Rams move first (LA may have two new stadiums built). The NHL just doesn't have anywhere they can threaten to move a Canadian team from to get that taxpayer money. Anywhere they choose to move will be a worse market.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

There is no economic benefit to the city/tax payers to fund the stadium in any way. Pretty much any reason that is given has been debunked. We'll see how far the Flames ownership pushes it (will they go to Katz levels of saying they might move the team?). I'm sure they'll get some kind of funding, but they should just pay for it.

City absolutely gets benefit from this type of project and structure, and no it hasn't been de-bunked. People on either side of the argument can come up with lots of arguments to support their case, many on both sides have merit, but there has never been anything close to a complete de-bunking as you put it.

What is very much debatable though is the amount of benefit the city will get, and how to monitise that. I won't pretend to know that answer, but I think it will be fairly easy to figure out, and is the reason why tax payers will end up spending some money on the new rink, because the government will see some form of value in having these facilities in the province.

[metroneck]

I don't think you can underestimate the societal impact if having an NHL team. Apart from the $, there are a lot of positives. Hockey is one of the most important cultural events in this Country. Based on how many people 'consume' it, nothing else is even close.

As far as their impact on the economy, I know 2 families here that successfully own multiple bars, pubs and restaurants around town. When the Canucks play, their sales are up qute a bit. It's a struggle during lock-outs.

[Hockeyguy15]

There are a lot of local charities that also benefit from the Flames.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by metroneck

I don't think you can underestimate the societal impact if having an NHL team. Apart from the $, there are a lot of positives. Hockey is one of the most important cultural events in this Country. Based on how many people 'consume' it, nothing else is even close.

I don't disagree, but the difference always comes down to the fact that hockey players and owners make millions.

With little debate or angst the city (& province) will drop hundreds of millions on art, cultural, and recreation facilities that most people don't care about and many will never use, but it's considered ok because nobody makes any money off of it.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

City absolutely gets benefit from this type of project and structure, and no it hasn't been de-bunked. People on either side of the argument can come up with lots of arguments to support their case, many on both sides have merit, but there has never been anything close to a complete de-bunking as you put it.

What is very much debatable though is the amount of benefit the city will get, and how to monitise that. I won't pretend to know that answer, but I think it will be fairly easy to figure out, and is the reason why tax payers will end up spending some money on the new rink, because the government will see some form of value in having these facilities in the province.

The claim has always been that arenas (and stadiums) "create" business when the reality is that they just direct business (so an arena in the Stampede Grounds will mean a greater share of money gets spent around there on game days, an arena in the West Village means that money gets spent around there, an arena nowhere means that money is spread out on other entertainment options. In that sense, it has been de-bunked.

So it all comes to how valuable is directed spending to a city. Often it isn't worth what they pay which is why I'm against money going directly to any arena project. Now if property tax deals or land transfers can be worked out then I'm usually supportive in the right situation.

If you were to take the Victoria Park location, the city could find a way to reduce or forego property tax on a piece of land next to the rail tracks which is generally a low value area anyways (so the opportunity cost is low) and the arena would then be the means to direct development further in Victoria Park and the East Village. All you lose is potential revenue rather than actual dollars in exchange for increased value which may have happened anyway, it is a rather low risk tradeoff.

To make a West Village location better, the money from the city would need to come from large infrastructure changes to Crowchild/Bow Trail. In this case, those are changes that need to happen anyway because that Crowchild interchange is a massive cluster#### and nothing good will come of West Village with Bow Trail being the way it is either (this is without getting into the creosote issue). So while the city would need to contribute a lot of money, the taxpayers benefit from a much better roads system and something of value gets built on an otherwise 'dead' location.

So the benefits are indeed there, but not in the direct ways that the promoters have traditionally given, and based on the sales tax abilities of American cities, it is much easier for them to come up with predicted dollar return, even though that can still fall spectacularly short (see: Glendale, City of).

[RM14]

Originally Posted by strombad

Yeah, sorry. If you have to be a season ticket holder for YEARS and develop a method just to be able to go to the bathroom in a reasonable amount of time, that means the Saddledome is pretty horrid.

My intermission strategy:

- Watch the 3 minutes of entertainment
- Leave section 220 and, hike up to the nosebleeds to use the no line washrooms.
- Hit beer vendor for a tall can of Budweiser
- back in my seats with about 7 minutes left in the intermission

- Never hit a washroom with a double entrance. The NE and the SW lines move twice as fast as it's one line for even more urinals

3 years to figure that out!


With a new arena, we will certainly loose some atmosphere. The seats will be further from the ice, and more expensive tickets meaning more of a corporate ticket base.

But I do beleive the theory that a new arena/facilities will be necessary to stay competitive economically and be an attractive destination.

Best case scenario with this pro longed delay is that maybe the flames are competitive in the final couple years of the saddledome's life, and we can raise a Stanley Cup in it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The thing is the NHL and by extension the Flames, don't have a massive leverage chip to try and get a taxpayer funded arena. Are they really going to leave Calgary, a guaranteed profitable market for Seattle or Kansas City, iffy propositions? I don't see it.

The NFL meanwhile has a massive leverage chip that they continue to use, including right now with the St. Louis Rams: Los Angeles. Any time the NFL wants to exploit taxpayers, its all about threatening to move the team to Los Angeles. The Chargers and Raiders can look forward to the same charade in the coming years, even if the Rams move first (LA may have two new stadiums built). The NHL just doesn't have anywhere they can threaten to move a Canadian team from to get that taxpayer money. Anywhere they choose to move will be a worse market.

Seeing the Flames own the Stampeders, Roughnecks, and Hitmen I have a hard time seeing them threaten to move as IMO the entire purpose of the new facility is to move all their teams into one place and have the organizations run under one roof.

However if it ever came to the Flames threatening to move I would support them 100%. The owners kept the team in the city during the lean times of the 90's and the success of 2004 really did bring a lot of positive energy to this city and if the city can't even bring itself to match what the city of Edmonton is contributing to the Oilers new building then IMO Calgary doesn't deserve and NHL team.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The claim has always been that arenas (and stadiums) "create" business when the reality is that they just direct business [...] So it all comes to how valuable is directed spending to a city.

Directing development towards the inner city and away from the surburbs has monetary value to the city of Calgary, because inner city developments are more fiscally lucrative than suburban ones. Having said that, I'm not convinced the arena would spur development in the West Village (at least not better than an East Village-style plan). It may simply displace the development that would otherwise take place on its footprint, and also it may split focus between the East Village and West Village (whereas I'd rather saturate the East Village, then move on to the West Village).

I like the North Victoria Park area for the arena. No LRT transfers for anyone and it's not using prime riverfront real estate. The closer it is to the CP tracks, the better.

[shutout]

For the owners a new building is a clear win from a business advantage.
Especially if you build an entertainment district in the area as well.
Have a new arena and a new stadium that are in the same west village location.
Both venues are equally situated to the train, transit, and parkades that will go in to handle parking.

But the crown jewel would be having an entertainment district with a dozen different bars and restaurants that would handle all of the pregame and post game requirements of the fans. And would be trendy and convenient enough for people to go to on weekends and after work even when there is no games going on. That is before you even factor in the potential to build in convention space in the area as well.

Public money for the project will be for more than a new hockey arena. It will be for developing a whole area that will generate jobs and taxes.