[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Southside]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

I fail to see how a football stadium that the public can only use when CSE is not (stamps or flames playing or concerts) is really adding much wealth. It certainly serves significantly less people than a public library does.

The field house is open to the public except when the Stampeders have practice or games. Concerts and Flames games in the arena have nothing to do with the field house. Sorry, but many, many more people will enter the field house than the library.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Ace

If they release a mock up like this, they would have way more support. It's way to vague right now.

This is where the Flames really screwed this up. In order to sell the public on the idea, you better give them a strong sense of what the facility will look like and offer. Just being vague and saying the images are "placeholders" was a huge mistake. No one would buy into anything without having a reasonably good idea on what the final product they are getting is. They failed to give the project a real identity by showing off something that will cause some "ooh's" and "aahs".

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I don't think people do. It was very clear to me that the particular funding slide was trying to spin it such that it shows that the ticket tax is somehow funded by the users of the facility - making it far more palpable to the general public than just "City of Calgary - to be repaid with Ticket Levy".

Granted. I was speaking more about those of us in this thread rather than the public at large.

Same with the CRL portion. Much better to say that the developers of the community will pay for it, rather than "City of Calgary - to be repaid with CRL". And even then, it's very clear that the public's understanding of what CRL actually is is really shoddy.

Also true. I suspect we will be learning a lot more about CRLs and what they entail.

Then you have all the people that believe a "city asset" is a good thing. It's an AWFUL thing for an asset like this. Imagine possible repairs, possible liabilities. These massive facilities generally only break even (the saddledome earned 1.5M in 2010, for example), and are generally worthless upon their decommissioning.

On this point, I am very curious to see what the ultimate agreement would be. If it is something like the current one for the Saddledome, then I have no concerns on this front.

Basically, I suspect that you understand the implications, but don't be so quick to assume the general public does.

As I said, I meant to refer to we in this thread alone. But you are right of course. Politics, at its heart, is the manipulation of ignorance.

I also understand that the presentation was a starting point for negotiations, but it was actually quite insulting to me that they would open with such a lowball.

Ehh, I'm a pragmatist. I'm not surprised that the Flames asked what they did, and I won't be surprised when the final deal involves less city money and more private money.

My personal bet is that the CSE and the city will negotiate something that sees the city not be responsible for fronting the ticket tax money or the CRL money (the more I think about it, removing that CRL portion would make more sense for the Flames), and that cost going back to CSE. So in the end, the politicians stand up and say "we negotiated a saving of $240 million for you tax payers" and the Flames stand up and say "we're taking on more of our own costs", and both come out looking relatively good, all things considered.

The reality, of course, is just a shell game.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

Did King actually imply that a public library was a waste of money and that a field house would be more useful?

Not in any way, shape or form did he say or imply that.

He said a public library is a good use of money, and likened the public effects of a field house to that of the library, for the benefit of all.

My guess is more use would be made of the fieldhouse than of the library, but I support both, even though I have not been to a public library in a very long time.

Edit: Thanks to whomever posted the library usage. That was a surprisingly high number to me.
I still would think the field house would get more, especially the track.
To that end, right now there are 2 tracks that I know of: UofC oval, and Glenmore Athletic Park. I am not sure if the track at Foothills is open now or not, so that might add another.
The track at the oval is not available often, and when it is, is very crowded. Also, it is small, about 220 metres. Glenmore Track is of course only usable in the summertime. Same with Foothills if it's open.
The amount of times people would use the track portion of the fieldhouse might surprise a lot of you. This is one of the aspects that I think is great, and much needed.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Not true because the price of tickets are not at the clearing price for equilibrium. If they were there wouldn't be a secondary market for scalpers because the tickets would be set at the market price.

In this sense where demand for tickets exceeds supply at the current price then you can confidently assume that the flames well simply increase ticket prices by the tax value with no associative reduction along the demand curve.

Fundamentally what the tax doors is to remove consumer surplus and transfer that benefit to the flames.

You're cherry picking the expectation of higher demand than supply in the future. Ask any season ticket holder how prices on the secondary market held up against their season ticket price for a few years prior to December (it was negative).

If you want to argue against economic theory of supply and demand or suggest that the Flames are charitably pricing their tickets low then knock yourself out. But it's a red herring. A fundamental understanding of finance and steady state economics dictates that the burden of a ticket tax falls on the people who will collect ticket revenue in the future (i.e. CSE).

Now, that burden can be somewhat alleviated to less than $250M in present value by lending at an artificially low rate. That I will give you. But the vast majority of the burden will still fall on CSE.

edit: to further debunk your myth that a ticket tax transfers benefit from the consumer to the Flames, the Flames can simply do that now by jacking ticket prices. Once again, this transfer of benefit story is a red herring that has nothing to do with ticket taxes.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

Did King actually imply that a public library was a waste of money and that a field house would be more useful?

he did not. That was a poster saying that.

He asked the audience if how many people would use the new library and a handful of people raised their hands. He then asked how many are happy we are spending 200 million on the new library and I would say 90% raised their hands. He said he agreed because the new library is good for the city.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by Robbob

he did not. That was a poster saying that.

He asked the audience if how many people would use the new library and a handful of people raised their hands. He then asked how many are happy we are spending 200 million on the new library and I would say 90% raised their hands. He said he agreed because the new library is good for the city.

lol oh boy, ok. hey, how many of you people specifically here for this project are going to use this project? oh everyone, awesome, therefore we should build it because reasons.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Not in any way, shape or form did he say or imply that.

He said a public library is a good use of money, and likened the public effects of a field house to that of the library, for the benefit of all.

My guess is more use would be made of the fieldhouse than of the library, but I support both, even though I have not been to a public library in a very long time.

For not being Ken King you know an awful lot about Ken King.

I'm not saying, I'm just sayin'...

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Locke

For not being Ken King you know an awful lot about Ken King.

I'm not saying, I'm just sayin'...

Yeah, funny how you can learn a lot about what somebody said just by listening.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ok....but your point is that this is being skewed by the media to make it seem that public money is being given to athletes and businessman. Really its mostly going to businessmen and not athletes, but that's exactly what is happening. It's not a smear job, it's the truth. And the Flames by far benefit from this more than anyone else. Do other parties benefit? Sure, but no one benefits more than the Flames, by a very large margin.

my problem is with the ticket tax being skewed as being public money...the majority of it is being generated by the Flames

concerns on the loan are valid but really a private lender would do that its not like they wouldn't make the money back

Again big bad Murray Edwards could take his 200M and put it in a MUCH better investment without the public outcry if all he was after was profit

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

lol oh boy, ok. hey, how many of you people specifically here for this project are going to use this project? oh everyone, awesome, therefore we should build it because reasons.

It is no surprise that the STH base will pay the majority of that ticket tax. I think everyone there wants a new arena. As IamnotKenKing mentioned 'He said a public library is a good use of money, and likened the public effects of a field house to that of the library, for the benefit of all'.

I can see the angle he is playing which is using the money that would be allocated in the future for a field house to this project, potentially building a better public facility then if it were a stand alone field house in the foothills park area.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

lol oh boy, ok. hey, how many of you people specifically here for this project are going to use this project? oh everyone, awesome, therefore we should build it because reasons.

Dude, take a step back and read what he wrote. Robbob said King was talking about the library when he asked those questions, not the arena. As in: the majority felt it was a good investment for the city, even though the majority was unlikely to use it themselves. King was drawing a parallel.

[CroFlames]

Just use space cash, duh. Solves everyone's problems.

Spoiler!

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Robbob

he did not. That was a poster saying that.

He asked the audience if how many people would use the new library and a handful of people raised their hands. He then asked how many are happy we are spending 200 million on the new library and I would say 90% raised their hands. He said he agreed because the new library is good for the city.

nobody would ever say they are against a library yet 200M for something maybe 5% of the population uses

its about building a quality city, Calgary is lacking on the sports/recreation side

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

lol oh boy, ok. hey, how many of you people specifically here for this project are going to use this project? oh everyone, awesome, therefore we should build it because reasons.

That's not what he asked. He was asking how many people used the library, and there were minimal yesses. He then asked if it was still a good idea to build the library, and most people said yes.

Edie: What Resolute said.

[corporatejay]

Biggest let down for me was the vision for the west village. Basically they said, "here is a map of the west village, I dropped a stadium and arena on it, added a racing stripe which I feel is pretty sharp" and called it day.

How can you expect people to get behind this when you've isolated the river. The pictures of people milling about in front of the facility is on effing bow trail which is basically a freeway.

The reason they didn't was because the infrastructure costs to do this right (~400 million) are no palatable. All of the sudden the city is having to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars to redevelop an area that it doesn't need right now.

I'm genuinely disappointed with this, mostly because I kept hearing transformative and what we got was honestly, a joke.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

I fail to see how a football stadium that the public can only use when CSE is not (stamps or flames playing or concerts) is really adding much wealth. It certainly serves significantly less people than a public library does.

Stamps play what 9 games? mostly in the evening...few concerts a year and other events. The field house would see massive community use in this plan or anywhere else they built it. Look at the other recreational facilities in the city

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by dino7c

nobody would ever say they are against a library yet 200M for something maybe 5% of the population uses

its about building a quality city, Calgary is lacking on the sports/recreation side

It's not the same thing.

The same thing would be Calgary spending $200 million on rec centers and public swimming pools. No one would have an issue with that.

The city spending $200 million on an arena is the equivalent of the city giving Chapters $200 million to build a MEGA bookstore downtown.

I'm fine with spending government money on sports arenas. I was in favour of Edmonton pitching on the Edmonton rink and I'm in favour of Calgary doing the same.

If you review the debates though, there isn't one compelling case stated anywhere that is a GOOD argument for the government to spend money on a sports facility.

The pro spending side basically washes down to, "Piss off, I like sports."

And I'm ok with that.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

It's not the same thing.

The same thing would be Calgary spending $200 million on rec centers and public swimming pools. No one would have an issue with that.

The city spending $200 million on an arena is the equivalent of the city giving Chapters $200 million to build a MEGA bookstore downtown.

I'm fine with spending government money on sports arenas. I was in favour of Edmonton pitching on the Edmonton rink and I'm in favour of Calgary doing the same.

If you review the debates though, there isn't one compelling case stated anywhere that is a GOOD argument for the government to spend money on a sports facility.

The pro spending side basically washes down to, "Piss off, I like sports."

And I'm ok with that.

Field House is public recreation, #1 priority in the city's own words

that is really a terrible comparison...especially with the flames contributing 200M and generating the majority of the ticket tax money

city is gonna spend millions of a field house eventually anyway in this project or elsewhere

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

It's not the same thing.

The same thing would be Calgary spending $200 million on rec centers and public swimming pools. No one would have an issue with that.

The city spending $200 million on an arena is the equivalent of the city giving Chapters $200 million to build a MEGA bookstore downtown.

I'm fine with spending government money on sports arenas. I was in favour of Edmonton pitching on the Edmonton rink and I'm in favour of Calgary doing the same.

If you review the debates though, there isn't one compelling case stated anywhere that is a GOOD argument for the government to spend money on a sports facility.

The pro spending side basically washes down to, "Piss off, I like sports."

And I'm ok with that.

I don't think that is entirely the case. I think they are giving 200M and getting a superior "rec center" then if they built the field house by itself. If completed I don't think that the field house is not used in some manner 364 days out of the year by the public in some way. Remember there are other amenities not directly on the large field that can be used (extra sheet of ice, basketball and badminton courts). Isn't maximizing and utilizing a venue like this what is best for a city?