I sat about row 17 in Jersey when I was there, and found the sightlines were good. What really makes no sense to me on the Edmonton rendering is how tiny the upper tiers are. Looks like they are trying to fit 14,000 people into the lower bowl.
The more lower bowl seats the higher percentage of overall seats they can allocate to higher pricing.
How much longer does the dome have before it has to be scrapped? I know it has some 'issues'.
It might be dark and dated, but on the surface at least it definitely doesn't seem to be in terrible shape. I could see it going another 15-20 years if necessary. I'm sure all the things they had to replace last summer probably added a few years.
The Bell Centre was built at a cost of $270 million, and sold for $100 million at a loss of $170 million. This loss is even greater of you consider $270 million in 1996 when the arena opened would be worth $299 million in 2001 when it was sold, so adjusted for inflation the loss was nearly $200 million.
Now this doesn't account for revenue during the ten year period it was open, although given the drastic value and desire for Molson to get far far away we can assume they didn't raise the $200 million difference.
Well that is from Katz who is trying to convince people to give them money.... not the most legit source in the world.
And Molson rebought the thing so they got over it pretty quick.
4) An arena is a public good. This isn't an office tower with restricted access, it's a venue for the community. Or at least the new rink should be.
Office towers do not have restricted access at all. If you pay to have access to the officer tower you get to have access to the tower. If you do not pay you do not have access, pretty much the exact same way that an arena would operate. It is not like the Flames will be opening the doors to their new arena and letting any Tom, Dick or Harry into the building.
Office towers do not have restricted access at all. If you pay to have access to the officer tower you get to have access to the tower. If you do not pay you do not have access, pretty much the exact same way that an arena would operate. It is not like the Flames will be opening the doors to their new arena and letting any Tom, Dick or Harry into the building.
Yep. Most of the events at a new arena will cater to the affluent - even more than Saddledome events today. You can't compare it to a library anyone can use, a tunnel to prevent catastrophic flooding, or an LRT line used by tens of thousands of citizens of all walks of life every day.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I don't think there are very many Calgarians who have never used the Saddledome. It would probably be the most widely used building in the city in the sense that most people have had one reason or another to use it. Whether it's figure skating, concerts, the wiggles (haha)... I was biking by the dome a few weeks ago and thousands of people were coming our with gift bags all dressed up, looked like some kind of Amway/religious gathering. The Dalai Lama came a few years ago even!
I don't think there are very many Calgarians who have never used the Saddledome. It would probably be the most widely used building in the city in the sense that most people have had one reason or another to use it. Whether it's figure skating, concerts, the wiggles (haha)... I was biking by the dome a few weeks ago and thousands of people were coming our with gift bags all dressed up, looked like some kind of Amway/religious gathering. The Dalai Lama came a few years ago even!
Sure a lot of people probably do use the Dome and I bet the vast vast majority of Calgarians are satisfied with their experience. But they all almost universally pay to get through the door. That being said surely to god if Maple Leaf Gardens was able to satisfy the hordes in Toronto for 67 years the Saddledome should have at least a 60 year shelf life in Calgary. In terms of functionality this is a question for the 2035 City Council.
Basically as far as I can tell the argument for a new building goes something like this. The owners cannot make enough money off the old building so a new building must be built. The new building should be paid for in large part by the taxpayer because allegedly private business cannot make money off of an arena. There is no public use argument for building a new arena because there is an existing old arena that is perfectly functional for the vast vast majority of events that are currently held at it (slight exception being the odd concert that Calgary does not get).
If Calgary did not have an arena or had an arena that was 70 years old sure, world class cities need an arena. But the Flames have an arena that is more than functional for the purposes that it is used for.
Last edited by Aarongavey; 07-16-2014 at 03:10 PM.
It might be dark and dated, but on the surface at least it definitely doesn't seem to be in terrible shape. I could see it going another 15-20 years if necessary. I'm sure all the things they had to replace last summer probably added a few years.
That's my suspicion as well, new audio/video equipment, refurbished dressing rooms/media areas, training facilities, etc... the Flames players/management are probably pretty comfortable with their daily workspace now that it's got a fresh coat of paint on it.
Museums, parks, art, libraries are not part of a billion dollar a year business. There's value in public money supporting them because private money will not.
It's a waste of taxpayer money because it's simply a subsidy to something that the private sector would provision itself. Net loss.
A billion dollar a year business that provides zero economic benefit to Calgary, you say?
Ha - dude you gotta lay off (or get back on) the meds.
What you propose is a logical plan to have the city help fund a new arena. It has no place in this thread. You're either in favour of the city blindly handing over hundreds of millions of dollars to billionaires, or you are in favour of Mayor Nenshi going on TV and having him angerly tell the Flames organization to go Fata themselves with a hockey stick. There is no middle ground.
Please show one post(er) that advocates 'blindly handing over hundreds of millions of public dollars.
There is only one 'extreme' view - the absolutely zero one
Please show one post(er) that advocates 'blindly handing over hundreds of millions of public dollars.
There is only one 'extreme' view - the absolutely zero one
Come on, in a country where 67 percent of the new NHL arena's are 100 percent privately funded you think that zero dollars from the taxpayer and 100 percent private funding is extreme? That is the norm in Canada, the extreme view is begging taxpayers for money when free enterprisers in Quebec do it without help from the taxpayer tit.
Surely Mr. Katz, the City of Edmonton and the Edmonton Oilers single handedly have not transformed something from extreme and rarely used by Canadian standards to acceptable and normal have they? They have not taken something that other Canadian cities have felt is no good and made it good? I personally refuse to believe that that extreme position is now the new normal in Canada.
Last edited by Aarongavey; 07-16-2014 at 11:48 PM.
Come on, in a country where 67 percent of the new NHL arena's are 100 percent privately funded you think that zero dollars from the taxpayer and 100 percent private funding is extreme? That is the norm in Canada, the extreme view is begging taxpayers for money when free enterprisers in Quebec do it without help from the taxpayer tit.
Surely Mr. Katz, the City of Edmonton and the Edmonton Oilers single handedly have not transformed something from extreme and rarely used by Canadian standards to acceptable and normal have they? They have not taken something that other Canadian cities have felt is no good and made it good? I personally refuse to believe that that extreme position is now the new normal in Canada.
Every single one of those projects received some sort of public/infrastructure spending. Every one.
The cost of the buildings were 100% privately funded, not the cost of the total project.
I believe the lowest was 13M in the case of the ACC (about 5% of the total cost) but still something.
You could include Winnipeg, where there was at least at a somewhat reasoned split, instead of singling out the stupidity of what Edmonton did. Nobody is advocating that.
Should the Flames bear 100% of the cost to connect LRT to a new facility?
Last edited by EldrickOnIce; 07-17-2014 at 12:28 AM.
Every single one of those projects received some sort of public/infrastructure spending. Every one.
The cost of the buildings were 100% privately funded, not the cost of the total project.
I believe the lowest was 13M in the case of the ACC (about 5% of the total cost) but still something.
You could include Winnipeg, where there was at least at a somewhat reasoned split, instead of singling out the stupidity of what Edmonton did. Nobody is advocating that.
Should the Flames bear 100% of the cost to connect LRT to a new facility?
I did include Winnipeg, they are obviously the other NHL arena in Canada that was built with some public funds. I am not sure anyone is suggesting that the Flames should pay for a LRT line. People are suggesting the completely reasonable position that the Flames should not get a dime of public funding for the arena. Others are suggesting the more extreme position that the Flames should get some taxpayer largess to build their private arena.
Please show one post(er) that advocates 'blindly handing over hundreds of millions of public dollars.
There is only one 'extreme' view - the absolutely zero one
You were one of the people in the #CancelColbert camp weren't you?
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
I believe the free public money option is a non starter outside of interest and some infrastrucure. The extremes being referred to should really be about the amount of time expected to see ROI on the amounts financed. 10 years, 20 years, 30 years...
Here is an option I THINK I would find reasonable (haven't put a ton o thought into it)
1. Flames by property at market value
2. (public funded flames benefit) Provide an escalating tax structure for property taxes over 10 years - 0 first year full 10th year.
3. (public funded benefit) Finance an amount less than $100M with payback of $10M/year completed in 10 years either paid directly by flames or through a cut of stadium profits.
4. (Public funded benefit) Finance a second amount of $50M to be paid back through a user tax on the facility - $2.50 per person per event over the 20 year reasonable life of the venue
4. (public funded benefit) Subsidize 50% of infrastructure requirements (Walmart has to pay for infrastructure changes required for it's stores, so should the Flames, but there is also city value for proper infrastructure to it's attractions).
5. Flames win cup due to awesome new facility. Calgary becomes better concert spot than Edmonton.
This approaches the "extreme" side of the equation to me, and would mean $100M - $200M of public money in total.
That would be a worse deal than they have today, since they pay ZERO property taxes to the City.
Under the current deal, I believe negotiated way back in the 90s, they only pay the provincial portion on an artificially low $80m assessment (perhaps frozen??), and the business tax, which is currently being phased out/harmonized with the non-residential property tax.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
It might be dark and dated, but on the surface at least it definitely doesn't seem to be in terrible shape. I could see it going another 15-20 years if necessary. I'm sure all the things they had to replace last summer probably added a few years.
That's not what the Flames are saying;
a) Dome either has to be renovated (Ken King was quoted this option is not a good idea)
or
b) New Dome (part of the reason for a new Dome is new Revenue streams...)
Clearly a new Dome is required, its matter of whom will fund the building.
It’s too bad we don’t live in a city with money or have a hockey team that makes money to help find a way to make a new arena work…. (sarcasm obviously)
I am a big advocate to how bad the Saddle dome is. I go to about 15 or 20 Flames Games a year and the only thing I dislike about going to the games is having to step foot in that abysmal facility. The city of Calgary deserves something much better.
Brian Burke said it best:
“Lower bowl in a new arena — in the new generation of arenas — is 9,000 seats, minimum. Ours is what — 6,000? So we’re not generating the revenue that an NHL building does,"
“There is one building worse than ours…the Islanders.”
It’s embarrassing, the finest state-of-the-art 1988 building in the [NHL]."
“Lower bowl in a new arena — in the new generation of arenas — is 9,000 seats, minimum. Ours is what — 6,000? So we’re not generating the revenue that an NHL building does,"
“There is one building worse than ours…the Islanders.”
It’s embarrassing, the finest state-of-the-art 1988 building in the [NHL]."
That maybe technically correct, but he is either willfully misleading the audience or he is uninformed.
About 2,000 of the upper bowl seats are higher or at least equal to lower bowl seat revenue with about 1/4 of those 2,000 (Gold) are the highest priced seats in the building and 1/4 of those 2,000 (Silver) are higher than most of the lower bowl seat prices.
Agreed. Those low row second level seats are the best in the game - they arguably offer a view and experience better then most of the lower bowl seats.
Like many here I have been to a ton of games, from lower bowl to boxes to note bleeds. the best seats I ever sat in were actually my very first NHL game -in the first row of the second level near center ice - which not suprisingly are most expensive single seat tickets in the dome.
