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

[nik-]

Yeah, like I said before, they'll never threaten to move. But the "economic viability" statement will get thrown around, which is basically the move threat with a bow on it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by nik-

And thank god we did and hopefully it continues. Seeing some American cities with their tax bases moving away, yet continuing to burden their infrastructure, is a road no city should go down.

Agreed, but there's no communities small enough and with the right mindset for annexation around Calgary to work anymore. Airdrie is too big and I have little doubt Okotoks, Cochrane and Strathmore would vote against any amalgamation attempt. Chestermere and Langdon probably would too. CrossIron Mills is partially an attempt by Rockyview County to slow/halt northern land annexation and the erosion of its own tax base that follows.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I assume the bolded above is in your opinion? (which I agree with, btw)
But others would say (and I would agree with them too)

It's simple:

An NHL team in a brand new world class facility makes the city more attractive.
A more attractive city helps attract/retain wealthy people.
Wealthy people invest in the economy.
The economy grows.
The city's tax base increases.
The increased taxes, if you like, could fund the arts, after school programs, shelters, or any other red herring that people who only care about their taxes bring up.

This is why we have an NHL team in a brand new state of the art facility - the quality of a city is directly tied to its prosperity.

Right, which is why there's a benefit to having a team.

However, that's not enough to justify public funding - the benefit has to be greater than the cost, and the benefit has to be something that would not be derived anyways (from, say, private investment).

If the Flames are to get public funding, I want the public money to go to things that are public. Subsidizing the leisure of the wealthy doesn't sit well, even if attracting them pays for itself.

[Jer Bu]

Calgary is already one of the best hockey markets in the world, in arguably one of the best business markets in Canada. There are owners of teams today that would happily move their team to a profitable market like Calgary, should the Flames decide to move.

From a business perspective, the city and province need to play HARD ball with the flames organization. Any funding plan that doesn't show measurable positive ROI for the city in a reasonable time frame should be ignored.

All the arts and culture benefits of a new stadium are great, for sure. But they are impossible to measure, and quite frankly the benefits could likely be attained with other lower cost investments that don't put dollars into billionaires pockets.

The Flames are most certainly a for-profit enterprise. If they were not, then you would see the Flames still spending to the cap in order to ice a better team instead pocketing $10-$15 million of savings last year and likely this year. if they were a non profit, then season ticket costs wouldn't have risen AGAIN, for a product that will likely be worse.

The Flames will try and get as much public funding as possible, however Calgary is in a very good position, and should look at any funding it gives from a business perspective as well. In a $100MM example, paying the equivalent of something like $100 for every man woman and child in the city in order get a fancy new stadium is bad business without a very good - real - ROI.

Bu

[T@T]

Stadium's to a city are like chicken wings in a bar, you lose on the wing but gain on the booze.

A loss leader if you will.

No way the city/prov doesn't kick some in.

[nik-]

They're actually not, and a ton of studies point this out. People don't spend because there's an arena, they just spend in a different area of the city.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

We're in page 99, and this is CalgaryPuck so I know the studies are linked somewhere… can someone repost them?

There are a few methodological issues I intuitively want to look into.

For example, spending money elsewhere in the city instead of the arena. Is it taking spinoff into account? What arenas were studied (Canadian Tire Centre in Kanata would have a drastically different spinoff than the Bell Centre in Montréal would). Also, using the Montréal example, are they spending in Montréal or the metro area? Sure they might be spending downtown now, instead of Westmount, or Laval. Mind you Westmount and Laval are separate municipalities so that's exactly the money Montréal is trying to attract. Then again Calgary's surrounding area is still Calgary. See how methodology is more important when arguing a specific case than the result of the study.

Now I'm not disagreeing (I haven't read them) I'm just curious.

And as other posters have said, there is a point where it makes sense, and a point where it doesn't. I would think it would be harder to justify for Calgary than it would Montréal or Ottawa. But you'd have to analyze the studies and apply the facts to Calgary and not take them carte blanche.


Edit: thanks T@T now I'm craving Steel City wings & Keith's on tap!

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by nik-

They're actually not, and a ton of studies point this out. People don't spend because there's an arena, they just spend in a different area of the city.

Of course they are - just not to the tune of anywhere near a half billion, like the City of Edmonton kicked in.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by T@T

Stadium's to a city are like chicken wings in a bar, you lose on the wing but gain on the booze.

A loss leader if you will.

No way the city/prov doesn't kick some in.

If that was true there should be a tonne of hotels and development around the Saddledome and should have been for years.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

If that was true there should be a tonne of hotels and development around the Saddledome and should have been for years.

Forgive my ignorance, but what do hotels have to do with anything?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Forgive my ignorance, but what do hotels have to do with anything?

I assumed he was talking about loss leader in the sense that somewhere else the city recouped some money as a result of building an arena. If it is a loss leader in the sense that you just lose money and do not recoup anything then hotels and development have nothing to do with it. Not sure how else the City recoups money outside of tax revenue coming in from a different source.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by SebC

If the Flames are to get public funding, I want the public money to go to things that are public. Subsidizing the leisure of the wealthy doesn't sit well, even if attracting them pays for itself.

And given the price of big-name concerts these days, you can't even justify the musical acts a new arena would draw as a bone to throw to the plebs. It would be more egalitarian (and cost-effective) to subsidize the salaries of the musicians in the Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

If that was true there should be a tonne of hotels and development around the Saddledome and should have been for years.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not that familiar with Calgary geography.

But didn't the entertainment district move closer to the Saddledome? I thought the Red Mile was closer to the Dome than Electric Avenue was.

Also arenas are generally built on the edge of urban development, proper city planning would have hotels several blocks away (but walking distance) to encourage greater spinoff activity (bars, restaurants, shops, etc).

If my wife and I are going to Calgary for a game (maybe next year or the following one) then we'd likely stay with family but rent a hotel room the night of the game to enjoy the downtown and not have the long trek back to the suburbs afterwards.

Contrast that to say Ottawa, where we'd never stay downtown for a hockey game, as the trek to the hotel is just as long as our friends and relatives.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I'll be the first to admit I'm not that familiar with Calgary geography.

But didn't the entertainment district move closer to the Saddledome? I thought the Red Mile was closer to the Dome than Electric Avenue was.

Also arenas are generally built on the edge of urban development, proper city planning would have hotels several blocks away (but walking distance) to encourage greater spinoff activity (bars, restaurants, shops, etc).

If my wife and I are going to Calgary for a game (maybe next year or the following one) then we'd likely stay with family but rent a hotel room the night of the game to enjoy the downtown and not have the long trek back to the suburbs afterwards.

Contrast that to say Ottawa, where we'd never stay downtown for a hockey game, as the trek to the hotel is just as long as our friends and relatives.

The downtown is nice but any half decent hotel will be 8-10 blocks from the Dome. The arena was built and virtually no development came with it. You will likely be taking the train to any hotel room you get for the evening.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The downtown is nice but any half decent hotel will be 8-10 blocks from the Dome. The arena was built and virtually no development came with it. You will likely be taking the train to any hotel room you get for the evening.

Correct, although there is a Marriot Clubsport being built soon in the area, so at least there will be that. Although I really doubt the Flames being nearby was the sole reason for it going up... I have a feeling that has more to do with a general revival of East Victoria Park, as well as the expansion of Stampede lands as an entertainment district (which the Flames are of course a part of).

[EldrickOnIce]

It's simply foolish to argue there is no economic benefit of an NHL team/building to a city.

University Of Ottawa Study, released in 2014

The results have shown that SSE has an annual economic impact on the city of $204 million with roughly $100 million of that in the form of direct spending. It also estimates that the club has generated approximately $3 billion in revenue for the region since its return to the NHL in 1992 with direct revenue accounting for more than half of that figure.

http://www.uottawa.ca/media/media-release-2925.html
http://senators.nhl.com/club/blogpost.htm?id=26473

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I assumed he was talking about loss leader in the sense that somewhere else the city recouped some money as a result of building an arena. If it is a loss leader in the sense that you just lose money and do not recoup anything then hotels and development have nothing to do with it. Not sure how else the City recoups money outside of tax revenue coming in from a different source.

I don't necessarily agree with the loss leader positioning, but the building of hotels or other venue's around the arena is only one of many avenue's the city could re-coup money on a venture like this (not that they do).

It's all about how many incremental jobs both directly and indirectly, and there fore how much tax revenue they can collect, are created by a project such as this. Venue's and hotels popping up around an arena or stadium are definitely one way that could happen, but far from an exhaustive list of ways this could happen.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jer Bu

Calgary is already one of the best hockey markets in the world, in arguably one of the best business markets in Canada. There are owners of teams today that would happily move their team to a profitable market like Calgary, should the Flames decide to move.

From a business perspective, the city and province need to play HARD ball with the flames organization. Any funding plan that doesn't show measurable positive ROI for the city in a reasonable time frame should be ignored.

All the arts and culture benefits of a new stadium are great, for sure. But they are impossible to measure, and quite frankly the benefits could likely be attained with other lower cost investments that don't put dollars into billionaires pockets.

The Flames are most certainly a for-profit enterprise. If they were not, then you would see the Flames still spending to the cap in order to ice a better team instead pocketing $10-$15 million of savings last year and likely this year. if they were a non profit, then season ticket costs wouldn't have risen AGAIN, for a product that will likely be worse.

The Flames will try and get as much public funding as possible, however Calgary is in a very good position, and should look at any funding it gives from a business perspective as well. In a $100MM example, paying the equivalent of something like $100 for every man woman and child in the city in order get a fancy new stadium is bad business without a very good - real - ROI.

Bu

Impossible you say? Let's be clear that the Flames owners don't own the Flames enterprise because it's a lucrative business venture because it doesn't make them much money at all compared to their primary business ventures and in fact they lost a lot of money in the 90's. They own it because they are great Calgarians that are willing to invest in something that gives a lot back to the community.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

It's simply foolish to argue there is no economic benefit of an NHL team/building to a city.

University Of Ottawa Study, released in 2014



http://www.uottawa.ca/media/media-release-2925.html
http://senators.nhl.com/club/blogpost.htm?id=26473

[nik-]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

It's simply foolish to argue there is no economic benefit of an NHL team/building to a city.

University Of Ottawa Study, released in 2014



http://www.uottawa.ca/media/media-release-2925.html
http://senators.nhl.com/club/blogpost.htm?id=26473

I didn't say there's no economic impact to having an NHL team. I said their is no economic incentive for public funds to go towards a new arena. This study is assuming that none of the money spent on the Senators would be spent at all. It's not "the Senators created 200 million in economic output" it's "200 million in economic output is being directed at Senators related activities". It's moving spending, not creating it.

Also, I find this to be highly suspect.

Approximately 87% of tourists reported that attending a Senators-related event was the principal reason for their visit to the city, and the majority indicated that they were very likely to return.

Really? 87% of tourists to our nation's capital went principally for the Senators? I don't think so. Sounds like a question they were asking right outside the arena on game night.

http://www.ottawa.com/about/main_e.shtml

Canada's Capital region welcomes over 7.3 million visitors per year, who spend over $1.18 billion

6.35 million visitors come principally for the Senators. Ladies and gentlemen, the most popular hockey team in history.

http://cppa.utah.edu/_documents/publ...s-stadiums.pdf

Few fields of empirical economic research offer virtual unanimity of findings.
Yet, independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has
uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation
between sports facility construction and economic development

Ignoring the substitution effect. Franchise consultants often anticipate spending that
would happen in and around the new stadium without taking into account spending that
may be reduced in other recreational activities as fans divert their spending.11 Assuming
families have relatively fixed entertainment budgets that they split among many
activities, increased spending at a new stadium will mean decreased spending at other
entertainment facilities (movies, amusement parks, museums, etc.). Thus, we can expect
little economic growth from local families redistributing their entertainment budgets.
Some economic growth can come from those outside the metro area choosing to spend
their money at the sports stadium rather than spending near their home.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by nik-

Also, I find this to be highly suspect.

Really? 87% of tourists to our nation's capital went principally for the Senators? I don't think so. Sounds like a question they were asking right outside the arena on game night.

http://www.ottawa.com/about/main_e.shtml

6.35 million visitors come principally for the Senators. Ladies and gentlemen, the most popular hockey team in history.

If you read the report, you would understand that 87% statistic were tourists at a game/event, not tourists to the region.
This simply indicates the vast majority of visitors from outside the area who go to the games do so primarily for that reason. They aren't in the region and therefore decide to attend.
This is an important distinction. If you asked this same question at a Ducks/Angels game, I'd venture to guess that number would be very small, as most would be in the area to visit Disneyland.
Without asking this question of tourists at the event, there is no way to properly determine the economic impact of the team/venue versus the impact the area itself had on attendance.