[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Why does a football stadium need to be attached to a hockey arena? Pointless...

Ken King discussed that in the presentation. He gave 330 million reasons.

Fact is, a new CFL arena is not economically viable as a separate entity, and McMahon is a concrete nightmare that cannot be renovated to any sufficient extent. If the football arena isn't built as part of a project like this one, it won't be built at all.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

have been extremely busy so have not read all the details, so excuse dumb questions...

1) How does the funding model for this compare to the oilers new building?

2) Why does this have to tie into both a hockey arena and football field in-one ?

I actually don't like the design all that much. Furthermore, why is the city's pro sports arena(s) going to also be used for day to day amateur sports?

This is almost identical to the Edmonton funding model and proposal.

Daryl Katz utilized both a ticket tax and a levy. Daryl also pitched the idea of rejuvenating an ugly downtown area, just like King has done with the West Village.

The reason why Katz was not able to secure provincial or federal funds was that there was no benefit to the province or country. Where King will differ is that Calgary has an environmental detriment to the province and country that needs to be addressed, hence should be able to secure funding to remediation and mutual protective structure.

Katz provided money towards the surrounding development of the arena (ie, condos, commercial towers), whereas King proposed no such immediate development. Katz also owns the ice district, whereas the CS&E do not. The Ice District also needed a lot of LRT built to support it, whereas Calgary Next doesn't (I don't think).

We'll see how the CS&E ownership behave during the negotiations, in comparison to the Oilers.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Why does a football stadium need to be attached to a hockey arena? Pointless...

Why does a football stadium need to be across the street from a hockey arena?

Pointless.

[hockey.modern]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Anyone else notice this guy?



This render has been years in the making! Haha

This leaves me believing that they're hasn't been any renderings as of late and these are the ones from when the project was first brought up and was stored until the announcement was made.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I realize we are all going around and around here, but this a real spin (no pun intended). The spin we were given by King, but still spin.

It's going to cost at least 890 million dollars (and no doubt more if this actually happens), and the commitment from the Flames/Stamps is 200 million. All the other money comes from someone other than the Flames.

You can call it unrealized taxes, "earmarked" money, or whatever, but ultimately the main purpose of this is to build a new rink for the Flames and a football stadium for the Stamps, and they have offered to pay for ~20% of it.

The "user tax" is still a tax on the citizens who want to go to an event in a city-owned building. It's called a tax, after all. It's not a freebie.

200 million bucks seems awful steep for a single field for public use (when the pro sports team isn't using it) and a few other facilities (wherever they would go in there).

The same Edmontonians argued the ticket tax was publicly funded. Not everyone goes to Oilers games who live in the Edmonton region. There are Edmontonians who do not travel to Rexall Place for events, ever. These people are not taxed.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Does anyone else think that 18,000 for the rink is a bit on the small side?

Has crossed my mind. I don't really think we are at any risk of not selling out for a long time in Calgary (exciting team, generally wealthy fanbase/season ticket holders, etc.)

With all stadiums, the cheapest ticket, is the most expensive to build. I get that. Im sure they've put a lot of thought into this, factoring in concourse capacity, ticket costs, revenue, sightlines/visibility, etc. and have come up with a model or concept they feel works best.

Personally I think we could sell out 20-22k 41 times a season and set prices at a more reasonable rate. Also, After looking at the design I must admit, based off the rendering, I absolutely hate the inside design of the building. Not enough of a lower bowl to completely do away with a second bowl. Corporate boxes are great, but the atmosphere of a crowd and a major factor last season was THE SEA OF RED. This building design, to me, detracts from that.

[johnnybegaudreau]

I agree with Bunk's and a few others who've said the same things assessments of the project. I would add to them the following things.

- If you're going to go to the lengths to ask for that much public money.. where is the innovation behind the actual district concept.. there is none here. None at all.
- At 900 million. If the renderings are even remotely accurate the stadium protion of this is gonna suck for stamps games. I know it's "preliminary" and everything but whenever KK is involved in something I always come out feeling like I got scammed out of my money. The new stadium/filedhouse complex looks and has the feeling of cheapness to me. I don't get that same feeling when i looked at the preliminary concepts for the new Riders stadium or Winnipegs or any other building that's just been done. They look state of the art. This at least so far, looks like it was rushed, which if they've been working on arena concepts since 2006 and this paticular complex concept since even a year in a half ago. There's no reason for that. They should have a really good rendering done by now of what the concept could look like.

- the more i pursue this the more it reaks of the Flames rushing to a cheap solution in order to get public support for their private profit while the situation is optimal for them.

- In all honesty I'd rather be hated with a state of the art facility that is truly state of the art for swindling the council members who represent tax payers interests then try to save face with the community and get a compromise of a facility that again in 35 years youre gonna be crying is out of date because you compromised. It just feels shady car dealer salesmany too me. For example go all in. Build it with a retractable roof invest the extra 200 mill make the stadium a stadium first and a fieldhouse second. Ask for the public to drop 690 million in your 1.2 B stadium and go for it. make it truly state of the art if youre gonna do it. DONT HOLD BACK NOW. Like come on.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Ken King discussed that in the presentation. He gave 330 million reasons.

Fact is, a new CFL arena is not economically viable as a separate entity, and McMahon is a concrete nightmare that cannot be renovated to any sufficient extent. If the football arena isn't built as part of a project like this one, it won't be built at all.

I get wanting a 2 in 1 facility in order to have economic benefit. But one can argue that a hockey arena isn't really useful for much of anything other than a hockey arena.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by johnnybegaudreau

I agree with Bunk's and a few others who've said the same things assessments of the project. I would add to them the following things.

- If you're going to go to the lengths to ask for that much public money.. where is the innovation behind the actual district concept.. there is none here. None at all.
- At 900 million. If the renderings are even remotely accurate the stadium protion of this is gonna suck for stamps games. I know it's "preliminary" and everything but whenever KK is involved in something I always come out feeling like I got scammed out of my money. The new stadium/filedhouse complex looks and has the feeling of cheapness to me. I don't get that same feeling when i looked at the preliminary concepts for the new Riders stadium or Winnipegs or any other building that's just been done. They look state of the art. This at least so far, looks like it was rushed, which if they've been working on arena concepts since 2006 and this paticular complex concept since even a year in a half ago. There's no reason for that. They should have a really good rendering done by now of what the concept could look like.

- the more i pursue this the more it reaks of the Flames rushing to a cheap solution in order to get public support for their private profit while the situation is optimal for them.

- In all honesty I'd rather be hated with a state of the art facility that is truly state of the art for swindling the council members who represent tax payers interests then try to save face with the community and get a compromise of a facility that again in 35 years youre gonna be crying is out of date because you compromised. It just feels shady car dealer salesmany too me. For example go all in. Build it with a retractable roof invest the extra 200 mill make the stadium a stadium first and a fieldhouse second. Ask for the public to drop 690 million in your 1.2 B stadium and go for it. make it truly state of the art if youre gonna do it. DONT HOLD BACK NOW. Like come on.

What difference is it the concept photos and rendering? As a taxpayer, you're going to base your decision about a 900 million dollar project on the complex looks in a photo? What about the funding model, economic (dis-)advantages, infrastructure, and actual important pieces of information.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I like the concept of FlamesNext...but as a taxpayer, the deal is bad. That said...objectively, its not terrible.

Here's how I think it breaks down:

Flames Proposal: $780m
Infrastructure: $220m
Value of remediated land vs current value: $50m
Total Cost: $1.05b
---
Flames and private interests: $450m
Government: $600m
Total Pay: $1.05b


Objectively, you have to agree there is some type of public benefit to these projects. As a result, there is some room for government subsidies. Based on absolutely nothing, I would think something like the following for government subsidies is fair:

1) $50m on the football stadium
2) $75m on the hockey stadium and event centre
3) $75m on the infrastructure.
4) $200m for the field house
Total: $400m

As a result, my guess is that this deal will get done...eventually. But the flames do have to pony up more. But is that really unexpected? While the flames rolled this out as a "this is our plan", its actually "Here's our first offer"


At the end of the negotiation, I speculate it looks something like this:

Flames: $275m
Ticket Tax: $325m
Total Private: $600m

Province Infrastructure: $75m
Province Field House: $50m
Fed Infrastructure and remediation: $100m
City Infrastructure: $25m
City Field House: $150m
Community Revitilization Levy: $50m
Total Public: $450m

Total: $1.05b

Let the negotiations begin!

Great post.

If the Flames were to arrange the funding to be repaid by the ticket tax privately and not rely on the City to advance funds, I could probably get on board with this.

A couple of other observations. I think the Flames are being disingenuous in saying no Bow Trail realignment is necessary. Just because they say it and they base their presentation on this assumption doesn't make it so. As another poster pointed out, without a realignment, the west end of the development is completely isolated. If the site is developed to the extent the Flames suggest it will be, something will have to done to address traffic.

Also, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that a pedestrian bridge to West Hillhurst will also be put on the table at some point. The City will be on the hook for this as well.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Furthermore, why is the city's pro sports arena(s) going to also be used for day to day amateur sports?

Because there has been a need for additional gymnasium and track space in this city for 20+ years.

It's not just for amateur athletes; yes, they'll be able to train locally now instead of having to travel out of the country in the winter, but it will also be open 365 days a year to the public for exercise and sport.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I enjoyed reading your post, can I ask a question related to this and the CRL?

I wonder in this proposal who gets the benefit of developing the surrounding areas. For example, to use our friends to the north as an example, the cost of the team's investment was offset by the owner using the increased value in the surrounding lands and related development.

Is there anything like this going on in the CS&E proposal that you can comment on? Are there specific interests which stand to benefit?

City (largely) owns the land, so it would benefit in theory from the investment. It would realize some lift in value, which would reflect in the sale price to private builders for things like condos, hotels and offices. In Edmonton the Arena Diatrict was private land with Katz Group and development Partner WAM I believe.

[johnnybegaudreau]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

What difference is it the concept photos and rendering? As a taxpayer, you're going to base your decision about a 900 million dollar project on the complex looks in a photo? What about the funding model, economic (dis-)advantages, infrastructure, and actual important pieces of information.

If you're going to sell me a $900m car. The renderings and the photos better be pretty damn accurate and I better know what I am getting for it.

The photos and renderings do matter. What this thing looks like. What the atmosphere looks like as both a fan and a taxpayer matter.

I've already written extensively elsewhere about the funding model and how it's flawed, and how the actual instrastrucutre of the area needs work for this in my mind to be supportable. Bunk basically summarized an article I wrote earlier this afternoon on that. So why write that again...

At this point I'm just adding hyperbole to the discussion what I think about this whole ordeal. And that is if you're gonna ask for 2/3 of a billion dollars you might as well go BIG or go HOME. Why try to save face. You're still asking for 2/3 of a billion dollars from fans and tax payers.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Because there has been a need for additional gymnasium and track space in this city for 20+ years.

It's not just for amateur athletes; yes, they'll be able to train locally now instead of having to travel out of the country in the winter, but it will also be open 365 days a year to the public for exercise and sport.

I'm not sure if they talked about the ice rink as being open to the public, but that has to be included too. How much does a city spend on indoor ice rinks? Or the training facility. How much does that cost a city?

I assume some amenities have to be kept for the players only.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Does anyone else think that 18,000 for the rink is a bit on the small side?

Less seats mean more ticket tax. Supply is way less than the demand

[craigwd]

The practice rink will be open to the public as a community rink.

[hockey.modern]

Where is the community rink? Unless it's the same ice that the flames will play on

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by craigwd

The practice rink will be open to the public as a community rink.

Too bad the game rink isn't. Maybe there's some NHL rules.

But that's smart because its building its brand. Kids play scrimmage in the morning and stay to watch the Flames practice. Then they go a play again afterwards while the NHL game is played on a big TV. Maybe you can train with a random Flames player in the gym. It's about involvement.

Smart marketing

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Bunk

City (largely) owns the land, so it would benefit in theory from the investment. It would realize some lift in value, which would reflect in the sale price to private builders for things like condos, hotels and offices. In Edmonton the Arena Diatrict was private land with Katz Group and development Partner WAM I believe.

Well the land is currently worthless. Assuming the provincial or Federal government remediated the land, the city all of a sudden owns a highly valuable piece of waterfront land right next to downtown.

So lets just say in 50 years the building is worthless, the land still appreciates. That's something the city doesn't have without this project.

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

MSG was told in 2013 they had to move from their current location in 10 years to facilitate rebuilding Penn Station
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/ny...d-to-move.html

Which is also a mess, the billion dollar upgrade was started before the vote and the planning committee that lobbyed for the moving MSG tried to suggest moving MSG to USPS facility site a few blocks away to which the USPS said they will have no involvement in that project. Basically it will be a huge battle in 8 years when the lease is up especially considering the upgrades to Penn Station were estimated to cost at least $4 billion with another $10 billion for transportation upgrades. They also have to convince an office tower to move as their as they have columns that go to the track level before work can begin.