[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Calgary Transit says McMahon has 700 stalls in the Park & Ride.

https://www.calgarytransit.com/park-ride-locations

That is just park and ride. The West half of the lot is not park & ride, it is UofC monthly pay lot.

For argurments sake, lets say McMahon only has 1,000 stalls (doubtful). There is about zero chance the CalgaryNext project has that many stalls. Now compare that to Stampede grounds alone which have over 2,500 stalls including the lots on Olympic way. Doesn't factor in the huge amount of street + lot parking within a 10 minute walk.

I agree we could shift to less driving to the game, but you can't go from 2,500++ to 500 stalls, and when you factor in the lack of street/private lot parking nearby the WV, its going to be a massacre. All it would take is one CTrain outage during a game and you've got yourselves a very angry 15,000 on your hands that have no way home.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

You're confusing growth with consumer spending. Arena districts centralize consumer spending. Someone who lives in Inglewood spends a lot of their money in that neighbourhood. An arena district transports those dollars from local Inglewood restaurants over the west village. People aren't really spending any MORE money, the areas where they spend the same amount change. This is good if you are trying to 'revitalize' the area but comes at the expense of cannibalizing other neighbourhoods. This is the chief concenr about developing the WV before the EV has a chance to solidify itself.

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).

Yes, it would stimulate investment, but it wouldn't stimulate enough investment to cover the costs lost due to a lack of taxable revenue for the city because the actual area that the arena district occupies isn't nearly dense enough for that part of the city. There just isn't enough available land after putting in a stadium to attract the investment necessary to make it financially viable. The costlier an area is to develop, the tighter density must be to offset those costs.

The West Village is one of the costliest areas in the city develop, and the Flames are asking to put in one of the least dense developments imaginable.

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

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.

Isn't this what the Flames asked to do, and then when pressed said if the city said no they would look to private equity for a loan? Why not just do that in the first place, what's the benefit to you if I borrow a thousand dollars off your credit card and promise to repay you. What benefit do you see?

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

And why should the city do that? If this venture is so spectacular, why do the Flames need the cities tab for the loan, and what does the city get out of having less potential investment dollars for other areas of the city?

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.

So again, admitting to it without admitting to it, what is the reason the city should take on that risk? Why should the city be underwriting a loan for a wildly profitable, established private business?

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

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

I dunno, I usually apply for a loan from the bank, not the city of Vancouver. Maybe we just do things strangely out here on the coast.

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

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.

If I buy a house, borrow money from the bank, and pay the bank back, it isn't disingenuous to say I paid for my house.

If the Flames want to buy to take out a loan to buy a piece of land to develop for a new stadium, why don't they just go to a bank like the rest of us saps? It's obviously for the more favourable terms. What does the city get out of it? "Prestige"? A "World Class" arena?

Is it so unpalatable to say that the Flames want the city involved because it's cheaper for the Flames?

[bax]

Originally Posted by Ducay

That is just park and ride. The West half of the lot is not park & ride, it is UofC monthly pay lot.

For argurments sake, lets say McMahon only has 1,000 stalls (doubtful). There is about zero chance the CalgaryNext project has that many stalls. Now compare that to Stampede grounds alone which have over 2,500 stalls including the lots on Olympic way. Doesn't factor in the huge amount of street + lot parking within a 10 minute walk.

I agree we could shift to less driving to the game, but you can't go from 2,500++ to 500 stalls, and when you factor in the lack of street/private lot parking nearby the WV, its going to be a massacre. All it would take is one CTrain outage during a game and you've got yourselves a very angry 15,000 on your hands that have no way home.

You're right, there is about a 0% chance that CalgaryNext will have 1000 stalls because they already stated that there would be 1500 stalls.

Not 500, not 1000, but 1500.

It's less than what we have now yes, but it's manageable and something that cities are doing more frequently.

[Hilman]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

These are good questions. About the only info I can gather is that a c-train car can hold 200 people, so currently a train can now hold 600 which should go to 800. I am guessing that is absolutely packed, but I suppose that is no different than games now, or rush hour downtown.

I would guess that the 1500 parking spots is less than what Stampede park provides, but if the current plan only includes the fieldhouse and arena, there will likely be room for other surface lots until the development takes shape.

The newer model of cars used on the C-Train have around the capacity of around 173.

http://lrt.daxack.ca/Cities/Calgary/calgary_sd160.pdf

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by bax

You're right, there is about a 0% chance that CalgaryNext will have 1000 stalls because they already stated that there would be 1500 stalls.

Not 500, not 1000, but 1500.

It's less than what we have now yes, but it's manageable and something that cities are doing more frequently.

Sorry, I caught the wrong numbers; 1,500 possibly at Calgary Next AND 4,000 at the Stampede Grounds alone.

Sweet jesus that's even worse. I'd wager that within a 10 minute walk of the Dome there are another 2,000 stalls at least in private lots alone.

Even with your higher number, the new arena would be at a minimum 70% reduction in parking on site alone compared to the Dome. And that is ignoring the fact there are 2 buildings that could see use simultaneously (not Flames/Stamps, but other events certainly) and not just 1.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If they extend the free zone one stop, it'd be great.

Never gonna happen

[T@T]

Originally Posted by 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

And parking/traffic there is a huge nightmare, the public was so up in arms the city started providing free shuttle service from brewer park and Carleton university.

Remember, this is one 24k stadium used primarily on weekends not two stadiums of 50k+ used weekdays and weekends. Ken King is blowing smoke up everyone's arse saying parking/traffic isn't an issue. Jesus, without the stadiums it's an issue.

[Robbob]

It is 13 to 15 minute walk from the last freefare zone (Kirby station) around 900m using the current walking infrastructure:

Google map route

The Vic Station to the Saddledome is around 600m

Ideally, on game nights they would extend the free fare zone one stop to encourage people to use the parking lots down town (many which are heated). They could even run a shuttle to drop people off on 7th ave somewhere right form the arena.

Also, they do run an extra train during game nights so that will probably continue to happen.

[Strange Brew]

For me it is not about parking per se. But does it make sense to have an amateur athletic facility essentially be in the same building as a major events center/arena? When the arena is in use, will the fieldhouse be able to be used to the fullest extent possible?

If your fitness club was connected to the Saddledome, would you be using it on game nights? Could you hold a youth soccer tournament/track meet on nights when the Flames are playing? Obviously anything is possible but I just wonder if logistically it's a good idea.

I get all the posters saying you have to use public transit living in a big city. Fair enough. Did NYC build a fieldhouse connected to MSG in the middle of Manhattan? Are there legitimate examples of this concept in use currently?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Who the loaner is doesn't change what a loan is. One might not like that the loan comes from the city, but a loan is a loan. Nothing disingenuous if it comes from the bank the city or your rich Uncle.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Who the loaner is doesn't change what a loan is. One might not like that the loan comes from the city, but a loan is a loan. Nothing disingenuous if it comes from the bank the city or your rich Uncle.

The city is not a bank, nor your rich uncle.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

For me it is not about parking per se. But does it make sense to have an amateur athletic facility essentially be in the same building as a major events center/arena? When the arena is in use, will the fieldhouse be able to be used to the fullest extent possible?

If your fitness club was connected to the Saddledome, would you be using it on game nights? Could you hold a youth soccer tournament/track meet on nights when the Flames are playing? Obviously anything is possible but I just wonder if logistically it's a good idea.

I get all the posters saying you have to use public transit living in a big city. Fair enough. Did NYC build a fieldhouse connected to MSG in the middle of Manhattan? Are there legitimate examples of this concept in use currently?

Probably not. Is the foothills athletic park used fully on Stamps game day? Is the Talisman Centre gym full on Flame game nights? Probably not.

There is a trade-off, but I think a reasonable one considering the claimed capital savings of placing these things together. More importantly, I think the operating cost savings would be more than worth the loss of revenue the fieldhouse might generate on a Flames game night.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Probably not. Is the foothills athletic park used fully on Stamps game day? Is the Talisman Centre gym full on Flame game nights? Probably not.

There is a trade-off, but I think a reasonable one considering the claimed capital savings of placing these things together. More importantly, I think the operating cost savings would be more than worth the loss of revenue the fieldhouse might generate on a Flames game night.

Talisman has a separate parkade and its access uninterrupted by a Flames game.

Again, any operating cost savings, or capital savings, are generally coming to the Flames' side, not the city. If the city operated a fieldhouse, it would likely be in a more suburban setting with standardize capital and operating costs and wouldn't be impeded by the other uses at all.

The Flames need to make it lucrative for the city and its taxpayers, not the other way around.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Talisman has a separate parkade and its access uninterrupted by a Flames game.

Again, any operating cost savings, or capital savings, are generally coming to the Flames' side, not the city. If the city operated a fieldhouse, it would likely be in a more suburban setting with standardize capital and operating costs and wouldn't be impeded by the other uses at all.

The Flames need to make it lucrative for the city and its taxpayers, not the other way around.

You forgot to mention the use of Foothills Athletic Park on game day. My point is that there will be some trade off of usefulness if it is all in one area, but that is no different than as it is currently. (Talisman Centre on game night was a ghost town when I was a member. Maybe everyone is at the game, maybe they just wanted to avoid the area).
Agreed that the capital and operating costs seem to be accruing to the Flames side, but that is not necessarily the end case, depending on how they land on the ownership, rental and tax situation. I have a hard time seeing how a separate, city owned fieldhouse would break even operating-wise, and I think there was a post that indicated that most city owned recreational properties are money losers, so anything to help that situation will be a gain to the city.
There should be a net gain on capital and operating costs by combining the facilities, with some loss of utility. I wish there was more information on how the revenues would be split, but the net gain should be realized by both the city and the Flames.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Probably not. Is the foothills athletic park used fully on Stamps game day? Is the Talisman Centre gym full on Flame game nights? Probably not.

There is a trade-off, but I think a reasonable one considering the claimed capital savings of placing these things together. More importantly, I think the operating cost savings would be more than worth the loss of revenue the fieldhouse might generate on a Flames game night.

Those examples aren't great. The usage of McMahon is pretty light. And Talisman is not connected to the Saddledome at all. Isn't it a mile away or so?

You are right it is a trade off and up to people to decide if its worth it. To me its not about loss of revenue necessarily but since its intended to be a public facility, more about usage and accessibility.

If you add up Flames, Stamps, Hitmen, other events, concerts etc. I am concerned we'll find there will be a large number of conflicts so I think its a relevant issue.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Is it so unpalatable to say that the Flames want the city involved because it's cheaper for the Flames?

Nope. But its flat out wrong to say the flames aren't paying the $250. Which is what you were talking about in the first place if you remember.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Those examples aren't great. The usage of McMahon is pretty light. And Talisman is not connected to the Saddledome at all. Isn't it a mile away or so?

You are right it is a trade off and up to people to decide if its worth it. To me its not about loss of revenue necessarily but since its intended to be a public facility, more about usage and accessibility.

If you add up Flames, Stamps, Hitmen, other events, concerts etc. I am concerned we'll find there will be a large number of conflicts so I think its a relevant issue.

It's relevant for sure. I was looking at as a dollars and cents issue, but there is more than that, for sure.
Perhaps a better example is the usage of the round-up centre. I think there are conflicts with Flames games, for example, the Car Show or the Boat show. Can they co-exist, yes. Would I go on a Flames night? Probably not, as it might be harder to get there/park. Either way, it isn't a deal breaker for me.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by getbak

Legal experts believe the province could force Domtar to pay for the creosote cleanup, even though they no longer have operations in Alberta: http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...te-experts-say


To win it would likely require a long and costly court fight.

This whole thing blows my mind. Run a business that contaminates land, etc... and then just move to another province to wash your hands of any responsibility?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Who the loaner is doesn't change what a loan is. One might not like that the loan comes from the city, but a loan is a loan. Nothing disingenuous if it comes from the bank the city or your rich Uncle.

Come on MMF. Bank loans don't come from the tax base. A city loan would, regardless if over the next 20 years we get it back, it's a lump sum of taxbase money up front. You can support the city lending the money, but lets not pretend there's no difference.

[Bunk]

I don't see the issue with minimal parking. Most of the games are off-peak times. One can park downtown or one of the many park and rides and take the train to access like many thousands of do already. What would be needed however is for there to be more intentional preparation for Calgary Transit to bring in a parade of C-Trains at the right times to support this.