[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by TX_Flame

Why do people keep bringing up remediation and infrastructure as if that wouldn't have to happen anyway no matter what is done with that land?

Because it still affects the amount that the city needs to make back to break even on this. If they do all the remediation, develop a neighbourhood plan, sell it all to developers, tax it with a levy that will pay off the development, they'll probably come out even or ahead.

If they do the same remediation, sell and tax only a third of the land, shoulder more of the cost of building and developing a facility on the remaining two thirds of the land which they will not get ongoing tax revenue from, make some money back from usage fees that will decline after about 30 years (as the building becomes outdated for NHL standards of that era and the Flames look for a new home), then there's a much greater chance the city never makes back their investment.

Yes, the remediation needs to be done no matter what. But it can't just be left out of the equation for the city. The fact that remediation may be very expensive makes it even more important that the city makes sure that the rest of the project is going to be a revenue generator for them, and I'm not convinced they have that opportunity, as it's presented.

[HartAttack]

There are 2 problems I have with the proposal:

1) Parking - This morning on FAN960, Ken King basically dismissed any notion that parking will be a problem because [paraphrasing]"with our current facilities (Saddledome & McMahon) parking and traffic have always been a problem for Calgarians, and they are used to it, so they can deal with it in a new facility as well"... Also if I could get over the fact that parking will be a huge problem for 1 event, like a Flames game (which I can't), imagine what it would be like when 2 events are going on at the same time... Say an 'amateur fieldhouse' type event - basketball tournament, badminton, track and field, etc combined WITH another event at the new hockey arena - concert, hockey game, etc ..... Traffic would be an absolute nightmare, and ultimately it might impact the usage of each of the facilities, as they would not ever be used at the same time.

2) Placement & Design - I feel like everything is just really crammed into the design because of existing infrastructure, and don't really like the fact that the buildings need to be sloped to avoid casting a shadow on the bow river (seating is not uniform heights around the fieldhouse), but since that's a by-law, I have another idea...:

Recommendation:
The buildings need to be moved further South, which means Bow Trail would move as well. This idea would allow the buildings to be designed in a more appealing way, and as well, open up some room along the bow river for what I consider to be the biggest draw for developing this project in WV, and that is pubs & restaurants built along/overlooking the river.

Also, by moving Bow Trail and expanding the development area, more parking could be included in the plans.

Finally, I just feel like the "Live, Work" portion of "Live, Work, Play" could be altered somewhat to accommodate the parking issue. I'd rather have a few less condo buildings and office buildings in WV, or at least ramp up the green space proposed in WV, which could be converted to parking (large grass areas) when events are going on.

Sorry if these issues have already been beaten to death in this 2,700+ post thread, but just wanted to share my thoughts.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by stone hands

It needs to be remediated no doubt but not for this

Then for what?? If not this, then what? Who else wants to develop something of this size in that area? Where are the other proposals?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Then for what?? If not this, then what? Who else wants to develop something of this size in that area? Where are the other proposals?

To add:
It's odd to say it needs to be remediated but "not for this." It needs to be remediated for ANYTHING to be developed. No matter the developer, the project, the timeline, etc. it needs to be remediated.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Then for what?? If not this, then what? Who else wants to develop something of this size in that area? Where are the other proposals?

I can't see how a single developer that takes up a third of the real estate who doesn't have to pay property taxes(*benefits for the city owning this buildings guys!*) with an already established market base would be better than letting it develop like the east village with many residential and commercial buildings

[sureLoss]

The remediation and a lot of the infastructure upgrades are sunk costs for developing the WV.

It also doesn't look like those costs are too far in the future either regardless if CalgaryNEXT is built or not. The city has already authorized CMLC to start exploring development possibilities.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I almost need to re-listen to the part where he met with the mayor of Arlington. Did he insinuate that the mayor said "I am not going to pay for overages" and didn't, then when asked about who paid for the overages, he said the city? What is he trying to say here? I'm thinking I have to have mis-heard that

The more I hear Ken talk the more reprehensive about the idea. He touts $450 Mil as if it's coming directly from the owners. He also mentions the ticket tax as if its a burden on the flames?? Also that owning the arena would be a good thing for Calgary when most studies show that stadium ownership for a city is not a good deal?

Though its expected for a radio station with very close ties to the flames so I'm sure questions were vetted, I was sad not to hear any hardball questions. The one I did hear about revenue sharing was deflected completely into how the funding for the arena would be structured(without mentioning the cleanup at all, again)

The conversation was a bit confusing, and then there was a follow-up question where they didn't provide enough colour if you weren't following along.

However, the point was that the mayor said that the city of Arlington made it clear in negotiations that they would not pay for any overages. They were in for their commitment and that was it, no matter what.

As a taxpayer, I would hope that my city/province/federal government took the same stance on every joint project it got involved in.

[Ducay]

As KK alluded to, parking is often a mess at both arenas as is and there are umpteen thousand stalls nearby, as well as a tonne of on-street and sketchy community parking options.

WV plan likely has fewer stalls than either existing arena alone, but for both facilities. As well, Wv has far less nearby street parking, given it only has Sunalta on one side, and 3 other sides are either arteries or the river.

[bax]

Originally Posted by HartAttack

There are 2 problems I have with the proposal:

1) Parking - This morning on FAN960, Ken King basically dismissed any notion that parking will be a problem because [paraphrasing]"with our current facilities (Saddledome & McMahon) parking and traffic have always been a problem for Calgarians, and they are used to it, so they can deal with it in a new facility as well"... Also if I could get over the fact that parking will be a huge problem for 1 event, like a Flames game (which I can't), imagine what it would be like when 2 events are going on at the same time... Say an 'amateur fieldhouse' type event - basketball tournament, badminton, track and field, etc combined WITH another event at the new hockey arena - concert, hockey game, etc ..... Traffic would be an absolute nightmare, and ultimately it might impact the usage of each of the facilities, as they would not ever be used at the same time.

2) Placement & Design - I feel like everything is just really crammed into the design because of existing infrastructure, and don't really like the fact that the buildings need to be sloped to avoid casting a shadow on the bow river (seating is not uniform heights around the fieldhouse), but since that's a by-law, I have another idea...:

Recommendation:
The buildings need to be moved further South, which means Bow Trail would move as well. This idea would allow the buildings to be designed in a more appealing way, and as well, open up some room along the bow river for what I consider to be the biggest draw for developing this project in WV, and that is pubs & restaurants built along/overlooking the river.

Also, by moving Bow Trail and expanding the development area, more parking could be included in the plans.

Finally, I just feel like the "Live, Work" portion of "Live, Work, Play" could be altered somewhat to accommodate the parking issue. I'd rather have a few less condo buildings and office buildings in WV, or at least ramp up the green space proposed in WV, which could be converted to parking (large grass areas) when events are going on.

Sorry if these issues have already been beaten to death in this 2,700+ post thread, but just wanted to share my thoughts.

Modern facilities are being built with less parking these days. It's part of the movement towards a greater emphasis on public transportation. I forgot which arenas, but somebody earlier in this thread talked about how so major NHL arenas have very little parking.

King also mentioned at the season ticket holder event that there is lots of Parking downtown (plus 1500) at the new facilities so people who are set on driving may just need to hop on the train for a couple stops or walk the extra 15-20 minutes.

Also, I don't think that there is any reason to worry about the seating situation in the Fieldhouse as of yet. The renderings they showed were very premature and I'm sure they will come up with something that works. When we see official plans, then we can start to worry.

[trew]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

To add:
It's odd to say it needs to be remediated but "not for this." It needs to be remediated for ANYTHING to be developed. No matter the developer, the project, the timeline, etc. it needs to be remediated.

This is also, exactly, the sort of project that should be done during an economic downturn, as it is something that eventually will need to be done, the dollars will mostly end up in the local economy, and general costs will be lower.

And that is to say nothing about the fact that there's a potential health risk if the pollution saturates any further under the Bow River into West Hillhurst. We are getting into the territory where fiscal restraint ends and legal negligence begins. The province has been pretty sharpish on putting in test wells and releasing "comforting" results, but things can only get worse over time, not better.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The remediation and a lot of the infastructure upgrades are sunk costs for developing the WV.

No they're not. That's like saying the cost for buying a new arena so you can increase your revenue is a sunk cost. The benefit of spending the money to remediate the area is potential taxes from the area.

This isn't something the city has already spent is is never going to recoup.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by nik-

No they're not. That's like saying the cost for buying a new arena so you can increase your revenue is a sunk cost. The benefit of spending the money to remediate the area is potential taxes from the area.

This isn't something the city has already spent is is never going to recoup.

Perhaps saying they are a sunk cost was a bad choice of words. My point is the city/province is going to spend the money eventually to make that land develop-able with or without a sporting complex.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Perhaps saying they are a sunk cost was a bad choice of words. My point is the city/province is going to spend the money eventually to make that land develop-able with or without a sporting complex.

Likely. However if the land is taken up by two large sports complexes, a parking lot and a meeting center, how does that potential tax revenue compare to some business blocks and a few condo towers. Especially since you didn't also have to hand over $200 million, plus possibly front the money for the ticket tax.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

No they're not. That's like saying the cost for buying a new arena so you can increase your revenue is a sunk cost. The benefit of spending the money to remediate the area is potential taxes from the area.

This isn't something the city has already spent is is never going to recoup.

Ok, remediation is not a sunk cost in the sense that it is actually an investment in the future growth and health of the city, along with future expected tax revenues.

However, (and what people are referring to is) the actual upfront costs of remediation are sunk, in the sense that they must be faced in order for any development to occur. And they will eventually be faced, it is not avoidable.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Perhaps saying they are a sunk cost was a bad choice of words. My point is the city/province is going to spend the money eventually to make that land develop-able with or without a sporting complex.

Ya, eventually it'll get done, but forcing remediation now by a province that is already running deficits and struggling with basic infrastructure is not the wisest use of limited funds.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

Likely. However if the land is taken up by two large sports complexes, a parking lot and a meeting center, how does that potential tax revenue compare to some business blocks and a few condo towers. Especially since you didn't also have to hand over $200 million, plus possibly front the money for the ticket tax.

Still lots of room for residential and commercial development. However, your point stands in the sense that this project would eat up part of that space, and thus, part of that revenue.

The benefit resides in the fact that this project expedites other development.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Then for what?? If not this, then what? Who else wants to develop something of this size in that area? Where are the other proposals?

CMLC already has permission to develop the area. there is an ARP and they are beginning environmental testing on site. The plan has been in the work since 2009, i think, that once EV is up and running WV would be started.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Perhaps saying they are a sunk cost was a bad choice of words. My point is the city/province is going to spend the money eventually to make that land develop-able with or without a sporting complex.

But they are going to use the revenue from a denser community population to finance it.

A big empty stadium doesn't produce the necessary revenue for the city.

For me, that's the whole point of the conversation and pretty much what makes this an unattractive development for the city. There is tremendous onus on the city to give up tax base to incentive construction for an arena district that won't generate the city the same kind of revenues you'd expect to make the development worth it.

If it's going to cost the city 1 billion to clean up the site, improve the traffic infrastructure and develop the land for a stadium, they'd be better off paying an expansion fee and plunking an Arena down somewhere else that was less costly to develop, and then using the revenue from the team to pay those costs down. At least then they'd get the full profit from the club which last year equated to roughly 70 million dollars from 122 million in revenue.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Ya, eventually it'll get done, but forcing remediation now by a province that is already running deficits and struggling with basic infrastructure is not the wisest use of limited funds.

Sure, in a sense. But the fact of the matter is that governments are pretty much always in that situation.

IMO, the right time for a project like this is exactly when things have slowed down, jobs are scarce, and construction costs are lower.

We're talking about long term planning and funding here. A project like this bridges multiple economic cycles. And it is a stimulus.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Still lots of room for residential and commercial development. However, your point stands in the sense that this project would eat up part of that space, and thus, part of that revenue.

The benefit resides in the fact that this project expedites other development.

1) the evidence of such happening in other developments is quesitonable, without a substantial kick-in from the developer (i.e. the flames)

2) Jason Markusoff's piece earlier this year contained many city emails regarding their hesitation to kick-start any WV development until the time was right. The city rightly fears a dilution of EV and other beltline areas if another development area is brought into the fold. From the sounds of the emails, the city has concerns with expediting the process in WV.