[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[sureLoss]

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.

Again not arguing against this. My point was to the posters who were saying the Flames were being disingenuous by not including the cost of remediation and infrastructure into the CalgaryNEXT cost.

The concern about if there are better uses to the land and how it is best used for the city is certainly debatable.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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 revenue from the club which last year equated to roughly 70 million dollars.

People (not saying you specifically) argue that

a) these types of projects don't stimulate new growth, it only causes that growth to move from somewhere else, and

b) it would generate more taxes with residential growth, as opposed to a big empty box like an arena.

First, you can't have it both ways: if a) is in fact true (which I don't think is an absolute but is more a function of location and specifics), then it is also true that those residual developments will still happen, just elsewhere.

In fact, I think one can say with certainty that if there is need for more residential development, it will happen - regardless of this project.

So that brings us to commercial development. And in an area such as this, with little to no current investment in bars, restaurants, etc, it is an extremely safe bet that the project would in fact stimulate extra investment in the surrounding area.

And I would go on to argue that the presence of the arena would further stimulate the current trend (and city desire) for more urban living (further guaranteeing that those residential complexes that you think would be lost, would in fact be built elsewhere).

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Again not arguing against this. My point was to the posters who were saying the Flames were being disingenuous by not including the cost of remediation and infrastructure into the CalgaryNEXT cost.

The concern about if there are better uses to the land and how it is best used for the city is certainly debatable.

It's disingenuous to say the team is putting in 450 million when 250 million of that is in the form of a loan fronted by the city that the team will pay back.

So far, the Flames organization is committed to the idea of spending $200 million dollars with the rest of the financing to be worked out.

[Enoch Root]

Regarding parking: while 1,500 stalls sounds inadequate at first blush, I would point out that zero stalls were included with the Winnipeg arena. None.

Reason being that downtown is already chock full of parking. People simply park wherever they normally park and walk a block or two or three to the game. And if that is possible in Winnipeg, it should be possible anywhere.

How many people work downtown in Calgary? 200,000 or so? They manage to park everyday (though I agree it is an expensive nightmare). Surely 20,000 people can get to a game - especially if there are 1,500 more spots than Winnipeg makes do with.

As someone mentioned above, the trend with downtown arenas is less and less parking to encourage public transportation. Frankly, I was surprised they announced any parking at all.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's disingenuous to say the team is putting in 450 million when 250 million of that is in the form of a loan fronted by the city that the team will pay back.

So far, the Flames organization is committed to the idea of spending $200 million dollars with the rest of the financing to be worked out.

Disingenuous like assuming the city fronts the loan when we don't have the details of how that works?

I actually agree with most of what you are saying, but it is tiring to hear both sides state assumptions as facts to bolster the argument.

[Strange Brew]

It sure would be nice to get some real estimates on the cost of remediation. That would improve the quality of the debate on whether this is the right time and development opportunity to move forward with. The city's formal response to the Flames proposal outlines their initial position on who will pay, which is that the remediation costs are not their responsibility.

I have some heartburn on whether WV is the ideal site for the fieldhouse. Everything would look cleaner if Bow Trail was out of the way.

[Calgary4LIfe]

The one issue with parking I foresee is trying to use one of the buildings when an event is going on in the other. Having to carry your gear on the C-Train would kind of suck. I do think that besides that exception, it isn't too big of a deal.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's disingenuous to say the team is putting in 450 million when 250 million of that is in the form of a loan fronted by the city that the team will pay back.

So far, the Flames organization is committed to the idea of spending $200 million dollars with the rest of the financing to be worked out.

1) we don't know that yet, and

2) let's be clear - guaranteeing a loan is not in fact 'fronting' the money.

When you buy a house and take out a mortgage, you do not 'front' the cash for the mortgage. It isn't even the bank that does. The bank borrows money in the market and lends it to you. You pay the original lenders back (and the bank makes a handling spread).

The city will not have to supply that $250M, they simply put their name on the debt (assuming that is how it ends up) as a guarantee, if it isn't paid.

On that note, there were comments earlier in the thread that such a guarantee comes at a cost because it increases their borrowing costs.

That is not really accurate. It COULD increase their borrowing costs, if it resulted in them oversaturating the market with their debt, or causing their debt levels to become too burdensome.

However, if that were the case, it is HIGHLY unlikely that the city would agree to guarantee it.

Personally, I don't care whether the city or the owners guarantee that loan. Except for the fact that, if the city does, the cost of the debt would be less, thus reducing the overall cost of the project.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It sure would be nice to get some real estimates on the cost of remediation. That would improve the quality of the debate on whether this is the right time and development opportunity to move forward with. The city's formal response to the Flames proposal outlines their initial position on who will pay, which is that the remediation costs are not their responsibility.

I have some heartburn on whether WV is the ideal site for the fieldhouse. Everything would look cleaner if Bow Trail was out of the way.

Supposedly the estimated cost of remediation should be known by the end of this year.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Regarding parking: while 1,500 stalls sounds inadequate at first blush, I would point out that zero stalls were included with the Winnipeg arena. None.

Reason being that downtown is already chock full of parking. People simply park wherever they normally park and walk a block or two or three to the game. And if that is possible in Winnipeg, it should be possible anywhere.

How many people work downtown in Calgary? 200,000 or so? They manage to park everyday (though I agree it is an expensive nightmare). Surely 20,000 people can get to a game - especially if there are 1,500 more spots than Winnipeg makes do with.

As someone mentioned above, the trend with downtown arenas is less and less parking to encourage public transportation. Frankly, I was surprised they announced any parking at all.

100% agree with this.

It is more about parking and accessibility for the amateur fieldhouse. Now 1500 is plenty of parking for that but the question is how easy it will be to access during events.

[Erick Estrada]

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.

Creostote is seeping into the Bow River. Are you saying money would be better spend on roads than preventing pollution of our water source?

[bax]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The one issue with parking I foresee is trying to use one of the buildings when an event is going on in the other. Having to carry your gear on the C-Train would kind of suck. I do think that besides that exception, it isn't too big of a deal.

I think these situations would be few and far between. 1500 parking spots for an amateur Fieldhouse should be more than enough. I don't think people will need to take their gear on the train.

[sureLoss]

Article on how Lansdowne Park in Ottawa has only 1500 parking spots but seems to be working fine for RedBlack games:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/08/25...project-linger

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by stone hands

They go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other, which is why this 890Mill figure is disingenuous. They are forcing the city's hand to redevelop this area for them when there is no immediate need or available funding other than "the flames want this"

It needs to be remediated no doubt but not for this

With respect, they are not forcing anything. They are making a proposal. There have been no threats, nor has anything been forced, or even suggested to be forced.

You agreed the site needs to be remediated. CSEC are simply attempting to be the impetus for what they think will be a benefit to the City in this area. If the City does not agree, then it does not get done, or at least not now.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's disingenuous to say the team is putting in 450 million when 250 million of that is in the form of a loan fronted by the city that the team will pay back.

So far, the Flames organization is committed to the idea of spending $200 million dollars with the rest of the financing to be worked out.

That's not disingenuous, that's just how loans work.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's disingenuous to say the team is putting in 450 million when 250 million of that is in the form of a loan fronted by the city that the team will pay back.

So far, the Flames organization is committed to the idea of spending $200 million dollars with the rest of the financing to be worked out.

No it's not. The only thing undetermined at this time is where the money is being fronted from. Even if it is from the City, which has not been determined, and paid back with interest, then it is still from the team.

If you buy a house, borrow from the bank, and pay the bank back, is it disingenuous to say you paid for the house*?

(*Please note, I do not want to get into a discussion about the City "giving" me the land for the house, and the City still owning my house. I am just talking about the $250MM.).

Edit: What Enoch Root and MrMastadonFarm said.

[RM14]

We have enough down town million dollar river front condo neighbourhoods. It would be nice to see this area become something different for the sake of variety.

[HartAttack]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Regarding parking: while 1,500 stalls sounds inadequate at first blush, I would point out that zero stalls were included with the Winnipeg arena. None.

Reason being that downtown is already chock full of parking. People simply park wherever they normally park and walk a block or two or three to the game. And if that is possible in Winnipeg, it should be possible anywhere.

How many people work downtown in Calgary? 200,000 or so? They manage to park everyday (though I agree it is an expensive nightmare). Surely 20,000 people can get to a game - especially if there are 1,500 more spots than Winnipeg makes do with.

As someone mentioned above, the trend with downtown arenas is less and less parking to encourage public transportation. Frankly, I was surprised they announced any parking at all.

I would be interested to see some kind of map or table outlining the "park downtown and walk" options you outlined above. How long of a walk (distance & time) for each of the closest public parking spots within reasonable distance to accommodate 20,000 people. Even for the argument of "park downtown and hop on the c-train for a couple stops" doesn't really make a lot of sense to me because the c-train cars will already be full with other people choosing to use public transit to take to the game.

What this boils down to, is that you're basically saying there are 2 options to get to the new arena: walk or take public transit. If we can get a reasonable answer to these 2 questions, I can take back my stance on parking:

1) how many people can fit on each train (include all 3/4 cars) and how many trains would it take to get all 20,000 people to the game, and how much time would that take (assuming 10-15 minute train intervals which is common in the evenings)... IE does our transit system have the capacity to accommodate the number of riders required in the short period of time.
2) how many public parking stalls are within a reasonable walking distance to the new arena, # of stalls, distance to the arena

I just don't think using Winnipeg as an example is really that fair. It's a smallish downtown, with plenty of public parking within a few blocks on ALL sides of the arena. In Calgary all users would likely be parking downtown (East) and all walking West towards the arena.

Spoiler!

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Creostote is seeping into the Bow River. Are you saying money would be better spend on roads than preventing pollution of our water source?

Woah. There are a number of studies that show the containment system is working fine pre and post flood. The levels of toxins are all TSTM or below acceptable levels downstream from the site. It was concluded that anything found in the water is what had leeched to the bank before the containment system was installed.

It needs to be cleaned up for sure but it is contained for now.

Also, our water source is the Elbow.

[bax]

Originally Posted by HartAttack

I would be interested to see some kind of map or table outlining the "park downtown and walk" options you outlined above. How long of a walk (distance & time) for each of the closest public parking spots within reasonable distance to accommodate 20,000 people. Even for the argument of "park downtown and hop on the c-train for a couple stops" doesn't really make a lot of sense to me because the c-train cars will already be full with other people choosing to use public transit to take to the game.

What this boils down to, is that you're basically saying there are 2 options to get to the new arena: walk or take public transit. If we can get a reasonable answer to these 2 questions, I can take back my stance on parking:

1) how many people can fit on each train (include all 3/4 cars) and how many trains would it take to get all 20,000 people to the game, and how much time would that take (assuming 10-15 minute train intervals which is common in the evenings)... IE does our transit system have the capacity to accommodate the number of riders required in the short period of time.
2) how many public parking stalls are within a reasonable walking distance to the new arena, # of stalls, distance to the arena

I just don't think using Winnipeg as an example is really that fair. It's a smallish downtown, with plenty of public parking within a few blocks on ALL sides of the arena. In Calgary all users would likely be parking downtown (East) and all walking West towards the arena.

Spoiler!

Well for starters not everyone who drives to the game will be driving alone. You don't need 20,000 parking spaces. If I had to guess maybe half of that drive to games? Of those people how many of them already have a parking place downtown for their job that they can use? I would imagine it's quite a bit. Not all of these parking spots need to be public.

Maybe I'm biased though because I live walking distance to the greyhound station haha