[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Rogers Arena in Vancouver, the ACC in Toronto and the Bell Centre in Montreal were privately financed. So too was the CT Centre in Ottawa - though the Province of Ontario loaned the team $27 million. So far as I know, that was paid back.

Of note, however, three of those four rinks (excepting the ACC) have resulted in huge losses to the original owner/builder. That's why teams want public support.

http://www.doniveson.ca/wp-content/u...na-Funding.pdf

(This obviously looks at the arenas themselves, and not related projects of upgraded or relocated roadways, etc.)

I suspect the Province was not paid back in full, as a result of the Sens' CCAA proceeding. The Province ended up selling the loan to the new owner of the building. I bet they took a good haircut.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Can we opt in, in the same fashion on all items then please, such as park creation in communities, road improvements, bike lanes, transit builds, hospital creation, education etc..

For example, I don't have any kids at the moment, I'd like to pay nothing for creating schools and education system because I don't use them.

That is basically every political debate ever and has formed the majority of discourse for centuries.

Western society has effectively said "no, you cannot opt out of these"

They are public goods that provide a net benefit to communities and provide zero direct revenue to the private sector.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

Ok...."successfully built" then. The point is the same. If you answer the question "do I want professional sports in my city" with a "yes" and should their be public support "No" you might as well go for a ride on your unicorn. I have no problem if you answer the first question with a no.

I think it is completely reasonable to answer those questions with Yes and No, without involving unicorns. It has been done before in various cities and leagues. Maybe the issue is the owners' riding the unicorns. Perhaps the city of calgary does not need a "world class" (whatever that means) stadium to house the flames/stamps. Perhaps something more economically viable is needed.

Less bells and whistles. More bathrooms, less transparent roofs.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

People need to take a step back here. The FIRST question that needs to be asked is whether or not people want professional sport franchises in Calgary. If the answer to this question is yes, then there HAS to be some level of public funding....period. There is no precedent anywhere in North America that I am aware of where new facilities have been built without some level of public involvement. Anyone who wants professional sports in their city and not pay for them is living in a fantasy world.

So if you want a local team to cheer for, the debate is how much public dollars, not whether there should be any.

We can talk about the Flames if we want, but does anyone here really think the Stampeders are going anywhere? Give me a break, this is probably the second (behind SK) biggest market for the CFL, there is basically zero chance of relocation.

Flames on the other hand is a "maybe" but they can probably build themselves a really nice arena for the $450 million they are willing to put in out of their own pocket.

Problem solved.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by bax

Why would the owners keep the team here and pay for a stadium by themselves when they can get public support elsewhere?

No, I don't think the Flames will move, but it's just not reasonable to expect a brand new stadium without some public dollars these days

Because Calgary is one of the most lucrative markets in the NHL.

Moving somewhere else is going to cost them money, even if they get a city like Houston to buy them an Arena.

[CliffFletcher]

If professional sports aren't viable businesses without massive subsidies from the public purse, then maybe the professional sports model is broken.

[BigFlameDog]

Probably easier for me to get to Balzac anyway....if the owners decide to say screw it we'll just build a rink, that's probably where it will go.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If professional sports aren't viable businesses without massive subsidies from the public purse, then maybe the professional sports model is broken.

well they are

its just that as soon as you place the city's name in front of the business', people go insane and lose all rationality and think we need to give billionaire businessmen hundreds of millions of dollars to build buildings that they operate and take most/all of the revenues from

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I think it is completely reasonable to answer those questions with Yes and No, without involving unicorns. It has been done before in various cities and leagues. Maybe the issue is the owners' riding the unicorns. Perhaps the city of calgary does not need a "world class" (whatever that means) stadium to house the flames/stamps. Perhaps something more economically viable is needed.

Less bells and whistles. More bathrooms, less transparent roofs.

So now you are with public funding as long as the design is not too fancy? Not sure what your point is. I concede it has been done "a few times", but it is certainly a much more common model to have some form of partnership between public and private interests to get things done.

[Simanium]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

We can talk about the Flames if we want, but does anyone here really think the Stampeders are going anywhere? Give me a break, this is probably the second (behind SK) biggest market for the CFL, there is basically zero chance of relocation.
.

Except that basically every one of the new or renovated CFL stadiums (including the Riders new stadium) have been done with public funds. The profits in the CFL do not compare to the big professional leagues (NHL, NBA, NFL, etc.), and CFL teams don't have the profits to pay for new facilities. For example the Riders turned a profit of $1.1 million in 2014 and made another $9.3 million from hosting the Grey Cup (http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Rec...995/story.html). Even if they hosted the Grey Cup once every 5 years, the profits would take almost a century to cover the cost of their new $278 million stadium. As the lifespan of a stadium is not that long, public funding is essential for the CFL.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Simanium

Except that basically every one of the new or renovated CFL stadiums (including the Riders new stadium) have been done with public funds. The profits in the CFL do not compare to the big professional leagues (NHL, NBA, NFL, etc.), and CFL teams don't have the profits to pay for new facilities. For example the Riders turned a profit of $1.1 million in 2014 and made another $9.3 million from hosting the Grey Cup (http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Rec...995/story.html). Even if they hosted the Grey Cup once every 5 years, the profits would take almost a century to cover the cost of their new $278 million stadium. The lifespan of a stadium is not that long, public funding is essential for the CFL.

How so? Calgary has one of the worst barns in the league and still has one of the highest average attendances. That's my point, that league doesn't need subsidy. The low cost of operation keeps the ticket prices down.

Explain to me why the Stampeders need a stadium beyond "They would like one". McMahon has been dated for decades, I'm not sure why this has changed.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

So now you are with public funding as long as the design is not too fancy? Not sure what your point is. I concede it has been done "a few times", but it is certainly a much more common model to have some form of partnership between public and private interests to get things done.

That is not what I meant. The Flames dont have to build a 1 billion dollar mega complex. Build a "less fancy" arena and they can fund it themselves!

It is common, but that is because people and politicians are stupid.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If professional sports aren't viable businesses without massive subsidies from the public purse, then maybe the professional sports model is broken.

When they start charging $300/ticket to go to the games, and only wealthy fans or corporations can afford it, you'll whine about that too.

Maybe we should be blaming the players themselves. The union has created this monster, in a sense, by paying the players $2B per season.

[trew]

I think that the best value for the city, would be to not build the fieldhouse, but rather just build the arena and event center.

I know Ken talked about the "savings" of building a combined building, but that doesn't take into account what could be built on the land instead of the field house and the incremental tax revenue that would result. (Repayment of a CRL is a much surer thing if you double the amount of land that goes to taxable development).

Tax revenues aside, I also just don't see how the Field house "works" in a downtown setting. At least with an event center, you will see regular weekday use of the facility; support for food, hotels and entertainment; and a large draw of attendees from the immediate surrounding area. I don't think the fieldhouse will provide any additional stimulus, and probably actually will even have a negative effect due to it's size and how it will push all the commercial and residential development into the margins of the community.

Oh, not to mention if there isn't a huge barn in the middle of the West Village to run roads around, they could look at re-aligning Bow Trail... perhaps in a way that would fix the "Death Merge" into Northbound Crowchild.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

How so? Calgary has one of the worst barns in the league and still has one of the highest average attendances. That's my point, that league doesn't need subsidy. The low cost of operation keeps the ticket prices down.

Explain to me why the Stampeders need a stadium beyond "They would like one". McMahon has been dated for decades, I'm not sure why this has changed.

Because Winnipeg, Hamilton, Ottawa, and soon to be Regina all got nice new stadiums?

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by trew

I think that the best value for the city, would be to not build the fieldhouse, but rather just build the arena and event center.

Some mentioned that one of the Flames owners owned the old Firepark (gasp!) location... as a Plan B, could you put the Fieldhouse there instead? It would still have access to LRT, with presumably less traffic/parking issues (and good access off Deerfoot Trail). No need to put he fieldhouse right in downtown IMO; also, could there be some amateur sports synergy with the proximity to Max Bell?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Because Winnipeg, Hamilton, Ottawa, and soon to be Regina all got nice new stadiums?

This is either sarcasm, or serious. If serious, that might be the worst reason to build anything, ever.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This is either sarcasm, or serious. If serious, that might be the worst reason to build anything, ever.

Sarcasm... I hope

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by trew

I think that the best value for the city, would be to not build the fieldhouse, but rather just build the arena and event center.

I know Ken talked about the "savings" of building a combined building, but that doesn't take into account what could be built on the land instead of the field house and the incremental tax revenue that would result. (Repayment of a CRL is a much surer thing if you double the amount of land that goes to taxable development).

Tax revenues aside, I also just don't see how the Field house "works" in a downtown setting. At least with an event center, you will see regular weekday use of the facility; support for food, hotels and entertainment; and a large draw of attendees from the immediate surrounding area. I don't think the fieldhouse will provide any additional stimulus, and probably actually will even have a negative effect due to it's size and how it will push all the commercial and residential development into the margins of the community.

Oh, not to mention if there isn't a huge barn in the middle of the West Village to run roads around, they could look at re-aligning Bow Trail... perhaps in a way that would fix the "Death Merge" into Northbound Crowchild.

When the Flames purchased the Stampeders I highly doubt they had it in mind that they would continue to play in McMahon stadium forever. You can make a case the stadium/fieldhouse is higher priority than a new arena as there's more in that facility for average Calgarians than the arena which is more a Flames facility.

[Ashasx]

One comment on Kent's article got my attention

I'm very confident the renderings were done as part of a class project for an urban design class as part of the civil eng program at u of c. I have friends who were asked to submit concepts for West Village including an arena/stadia/filed house concept. They were all asked to sign confidentially agreements.

Has anyone heard anything similar?