[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

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

Man, if people were listening this thread would be a lot shorter.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by dino7c

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

The city does not have funding for this. It wants to do it, but it doesn't have the budgeted funds for it. In theory it may not have the funds for 10 more years or longer. They didn't have Green Line funding until the Feds step in with an election bribe the needed funds to get the project going. Right now that $200 million technically isn't real, it's theoretically going to be in a city budget in the coming years.

[Frequitude]

I wonder what this means for the future of the Stampede's Olympic Ave development plans with retail, hotels, etc. Surely this is harmed by not having an occupied Saddledome ~150 nights a year.

If it is harmed, I suppose this lends credence to the notion that arenas don't add nearly as much to the tax base through ancillary development as advertised, they merely shift it from one place to another.

[RW99]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I wonder what this means for the future of the Stampede's Olympic Ave development plans with retail, hotels, etc. Surely this is harmed by not having an occupied Saddledome ~150 nights a year.

If it is harmed, I suppose this lends credence to the notion that arenas don't add nearly as much to the tax base through ancillary development as advertised, they merely shift it from one place to another.

If you haven't seen it already: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...to-accommodate

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Robbob

From the Summary portion of the report you linked:

"If the stadium or arena has effects on the local economy, one might think that those effects would appear most obviously in the vicinity of the facility. Proponents of stadium and arena led growth typically contend that restaurants, bars, and hotels in the area will expand their business as fans patronize the establishments before and after the game. If this argument is correct, then property values and rents should rise as the present value of the new stream of profits is capitalized into property values. On the other hand, property values may fall as the presence of rowdy, drunken fans in the neighborhood makes it a less pleasant place to live or operate a business.

The results suggest that property values are slightly higher in the first ring, with a diameter of a half mile."

Is that not area exactly in the CRL area? I would think that it shows the area will be beneficial to that area because it is confined to just the west village area (guessing maybe 2km^2).

I think the study goes more to dissuade or poo poo areas like Detroit where they think the area will raise property value and bring jobs. In this case you are just talking about a smaller area all within that first ring where there was a positive from the arena. I may be reading it wrong, but that is how I interpreted it.

Which is fine. I am not claiming that there won't be development, I am just stating that the amount of development is grossly overstated by developers in programs like this. This, in turn means that less tax revenue would be generated.

The fact is that 250 million is a ton of money to raise given the small size of the area, impacted by the fact that a large portion of that small area will be a net zero for the cities tax coffers.

Also add in the fact that the development in the WV will take away development opportunities in other areas of the city. An arena won't increase the population, or the spending habits of the people here (people still spend the same money, will just spend on different things/different areas) so the city is ultimately spending 250 million of its own money that it could have gotten from a different area of the city to finance a new arena (not counting any changes in WV that will need to be done).

Just some more sources from an empirical study: http://econjwatch.org/articles/do-ec...nd-mega-events

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The city does not have funding for this. It wants to do it, but it doesn't have the budgeted funds for it. In theory it may not have the funds for 10 more years or longer. They didn't have Green Line funding until the Feds step in with an election bribe the needed funds to get the project going. Right now that $200 million technically isn't real, it's theoretically going to be in a city budget in the coming years.

Just remember the city plays those cards deliberately.

Nothing of significance is announced with funding. The mayor (any mayor, not just the current) is never going to give away a chip to go back to the Feds, the province, or ultimately taxpayers. It's just how they roll.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by dino7c

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

Yes but it does not stop at that, the other 200 million is the big mystery piece that because of the indemnification deal essentially means the city will have to pick that up. Ken was very vague about that and said they would have to sit down and hopefully get the province to kick in some money. Alberta is only liable for damage to the environment ensuing from the existing scenario, not the cleanup. This puts the city on the hook for 400 million, not 200 million.

Bottom line is this is the most costly location they possibly could have picked. You could tear down the Saddledome completely and build a brand new building(with better parking and access then the west village) from scratch in the same location for 450 with no city money.

[Jordan!]

Is there a reason they didn't just build it on the grounds somewhere? Nothing they could've brought down? Could've built it on the current parking lot, tear down the old dome and then replace the old dome with parking.

It would affect the parking situation for a few years though.

This proposed location is stupid (Former Calgarian, I know - what do I care?)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Is there a reason they didn't just build it on the grounds somewhere? Nothing they could've brought down? Could've built it on the current parking lot, tear down the old dome and then replace the old dome with parking.

It would affect the parking situation for a few years though.

This proposed location is stupid (Former Calgarian speaking)

It wouldn't just affect the parking situation for a few years. It wild end the Stampede midway entirely.

And the article said outright - the project is just too big for the Stampede grounds.

[sureLoss]

King also said that getting a CRL for the stampede grounds wouldn't be possible.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

King also said that getting a CRL for the stampede grounds wouldn't be possible.

In other words it wouldn't be possible to get the taxpayer to pay for a greater share of our arena.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

In other words it wouldn't be possible to get the taxpayer to pay for a greater share of our arena.

If the Flames are paying $200 Mil and there is a $250 Mil ticket tax, how is the city contributing to the arena?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

If the Flames are paying $200 Mil and there is a $250 Mil ticket tax, how is the city contributing to the arena?

Because their only plan is this CalgaryNext. If this doesn't happen, they don't have an alternate plan to just build an arena.

[Vulcan]

This project doesn't make economic sense but when it comes down to it, it isn't supposed to no matter how King wants to sell it. This is my simplistic view.

The Fieldhouse - this is another facility like the library. I think Calgary needs it as it adds to the quality of life.

The Stadium - This is for the CFL Stamps. The CFL is a break even proposition in almost every city in Canada but it's part of our Canadian identity. It needs to be subsidized in order to exist. I think it's good for Canada although some may not agree but I think it deserves a facility sponsored by government money.

The Arena - This is the most contentious place for involving government money as it involves Billionaire owners employing millionaire players. They should be able to finance there own facility but that isn't how pro sports works and until it's changed, if we want a team, the government needs to chip in. On the plus side this is where the owners are putting up the biggest share. Sure you can force them to finance it all but the owners in Vancouver and Ottawa both went bankrupt after building their own arenas.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

In other words it wouldn't be possible to get the taxpayer to pay for a greater share of our arena.

No. In other words, that money would have still been fronted by the tax payers, but instead of the taxes from new developments used to repay a CRL, everyone in the city would likely have been on the hook to repay.

[Tinordi]

Would love to see Muta show up to defend some of the design decisions which look very questionable at the point.

The development plan is honestly an even bigger roadblock than the funding. Downtown land opens up for development very rarely so you really need to maximize it for both the development and public benefit perspective. What this plan shows is that it's going to orphan the riverfront into a fringe space cut off from the rest of the public space. This is simply not allowed. Major parts of the actual design and development should be going back to the drawing board. It's like 1993 called and submitted it's design. Simply not suitable by current urban design principles.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

No. In other words, that money would have still been fronted by the tax payers, but instead of the taxes from new developments used to repay a CRL, everyone in the city would likely have been on the hook to repay.

Wha?

Why would taxpayers have still paid?

Big leap of logic there.

[Robbob]

How is Muta responsible for any of the design decisions?

[corporatejay]

For some reason I was hoping to hear this yesterday:

The Calgary Flames are going to build a facility that has a stadium, arena and field house. The cost is $1 billion. We are asking the city to allocate the $200 for the field house to us. The rest of the 800 million is on us, don't worry how we get it, whether it's ticket tax, but that is our responsibility.

We've asked to the city to give us the land, we will remediate it in exchange for the ownership of it and the building.

Finally, the city has committed to spend ~XX dollars on infrastructure in the area to re-align bow trail and revitalize the west village which it was planning to do anyway.



Instead we got "We want to build a billion dollar facility on the old greyhound station, we'll contribute $200 million", you guys figure out the rest.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Robbob

How is Muta responsible for any of the design decisions?

He's not, but he said several times people's socks would be blown off. One poster already nailed the fact that most people still have their socks on now.