[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

As far as the parking situation goes, and maybe it's been discussed, but people will adapt to what ever is available at the location IMO. Right now, I don't park anywhere close to the Stampede grounds for Flames games because I can't stand the time it takes to get in and out. I'd rather park significantly further away and walk. But that's my preference, and I'm capable to do the walk, even in winter, and I realize not all are.

But I don't think we should fool ourselves. I'm willing to bet the parking issue is one that Ken King and the Flames have been willing to give in on to the city, because they know at the end of the day, people will still go to the games and events at the building even without it. The city wants less people driving and using more transit, taking away parking options helps increase that. One of the consolations they are likely making with the city as they work on this plan with them.

As for the comment about one transit outage to cause mayhem. Fair enough, but that would be the case anywhere, and it would be the case if there was more parking too. All it takes is one poorly placed accident and it causes mayhem for people leaving the game who drove, and a car accident is much more likely than a transit outage.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

The city would be borrowing the money. They don't have $250 million sitting in the bank to lend out to private businesses, and that isn't the plan. Strictly speaking, it's a lump sum of bank depositors' money. It is in no way a lump sum of taxbase money.

The only salient reason to structure it in this particular way is that the City of Calgary has a lower cost of borrowing than CSEC.

[Southside]

Originally Posted by 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.

This. Never understand why Calgary Transit can't manage this better already. They even have that sidetrack at Victoria Park station for reasons unknown as I've never seen it utilized.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you increase the supply of the expensive riverfront condo neighbourhoods, they become less expensive riverfront condo neighbourhoods. I, for one, would like to see a large supply of downtown riverfront condos.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

No, that is flat out wrong.

The city would not cut a cheque from its coffers. It would borrow the money in the markets. The project would pay it back.

At no time would money ever come form the tax base.

The only reason the city would be involved in the process at all is that their credit rating would secure a cheaper loan.

[stone hands]

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.

Capital savings for whom? If the flames scrap this idea and build the new arena in balzak it saves the city hundreds of millions of dollars. This only saves money if you are the flames

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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.

No I am not confusing the two. Again, go back to your original comment about WV losing out on more profitable residential construction. You can't have it both ways. And yes, sometimes investment DOES increase total spending - it's called the money multiplier and I know you're familiar with it.

Also, I think the argument that WV would cannibalize the growth of EV is garbage. In a city of 1.2M+, there is ongoing investment in multiple areas. Assuming WV can't begin until EV is complete is short-sighted and small-minded IMO.

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.

Unless you have a study to quote, I assume this is speculation on your part. Again, I go back to the argument (your argument) that, if it was going to be built, it will be built somewhere else anyway, so if there isn't room in WV, those projects will get built elsewhere, providing direct revenue for the city. But I doubt your original premise that there isn't room for investment - there is lots of surrounding area (whether it be inside or outside of the CRL zone) for growth in that part of the city.

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?

Lower interest rates are the benefit. Plain and simple. No cost to the city, but a benefit to the project.

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?

Again, the benefit is lower borrowing costs.

But far more importantly, the bolded part is inaccurate: the city would not (unless they are near their borrowing limit - at which point they would not agree to the loan) have 'less potential investment dollars for other areas'. It simply doesn't work that way.

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?

Again, lower cost of borrowing. You are attempting to make an issue out of something that simply isn't an issue.

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.


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?

No offense intended, but these comments suggest that you simply don't understand how this works.

To the bolded, yes, once you pay off your mortgage, you have paid for your house. Similarly, once the ticket tax pays off the loan, users will have paid the $250M (to the lost revenue of the Flames, essentially putting the cost on them).

If you think your comment through, you should see my point, which is that the bank didn't pay the mortgage (or in this case the city). Again, the bank (city) doesn't front the money. The bank works as an intermediary, borrowing the money on behalf of home-buyers because they don't have the clout to borrow the money themselves. THE EXACT SAME THING is happening here - the city could borrow the money at a cheaper interest rate than CalgaryNext could. However, that does NOT mean that the bank/city actually puts up any money.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, that is flat out wrong.

The city would not cut a cheque from its coffers. It would borrow the money in the markets. The project would pay it back.

At no time would money ever come form the tax base.

The only reason the city would be involved in the process at all is that their credit rating would secure a cheaper loan.

You nailed it. Loans are basically free money. Makes you wonder why the city isn't taking out more of these $250M loans to cover other projects, since the projects' income would cover the loan. We should see new rec centres and arenas popping up in 3-4 years time now we've uncovered how to rent money.

Flames have no trouble getting good interest rates, trust me, big N.M.Edwards could guarantee that amount personally in a heartbeat and get a fabulous rate. There is a reason he isn't.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ducay

You nailed it. Loans are basically free money. Makes you wonder why the city isn't taking out more of these $250M loans to cover other projects, since the projects' income would cover the loan. We should see new rec centres and arenas popping up in 3-4 years time now we've uncovered how to rent money.

Flames have no trouble getting good interest rates, trust me, big N.M.Edwards could guarantee that amount personally in a heartbeat and get a fabulous rate. There is a reason he isn't.

I see absolutely no reason for sarcasm here. It is a discussion about the various issues and details that are potentially at stake.

If you would like to have an intelligent conversation about these issues, great. If not, then please keep it to yourself.

As for the ownership group borrowing the money themselves, yes they could - and no one, including KK, has said otherwise.

However, if you want to pretend that you have any idea of what you are talking about, then you would know that the city can borrow the money at a cheaper rate than the project could commercially.

Is it massively different? In your mind, probably no. But for a 9 digit loan, every basis point matters.

[hockey.modern]

Sorry if posted already but did anyone catch the interview with K.K this morning?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Sorry if posted already but did anyone catch the interview with K.K this morning?

It wasn't an interview. It was a "townhall" where 960 listeners would call in to ask questions.

There wasn't anything new discussed really. Most of the questions were on topics originally discussed in King's presentation and King also dodged a few things.

Link to audio here:
http://pmd.fan960.com/audio_on_deman...-Interview.mp3

[getbak]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Sorry if posted already but did anyone catch the interview with K.K this morning?

Here it is, if you want to listen to it: http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/calgary-...ken-king-live/


For anyone who did listen to it, was there anything new or interesting said, or was it just rehashing everything that has been said before?

Since it's almost an hour long, I'd like to know if it's worth sitting through.

[taffeyb]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

It's laughable to think one train each way clears the Saddledome crowd after a Flames game. Or that the next 1-2 trains each way aren't also jammed.

Well, I take the train to every game that I attend. Two trains clear out most of the platform. That being said, I don't factor in those who hang around the dome and stagger along 30 minutes after a game ends. I'm comfortably in my car in the south end by then.

Still, by your math, 6 trains at 750 is 4500 passengers. You still have 14,000 unaccounted for. ha ha for a laugh

[RM14]

I learned that the shadow by-law is people and not fish....

[Bunk]

If one lives in the new condos planned by the River and Pumphouse theatre, how does one cross Bow Trail? It's like running across Crowchild or Deerfoot.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bunk

If one lives in the new condos planned by the River and Pumphouse theatre, how does one cross Bow Trail? It's like running across Crowchild or Deerfoot.

This is why Bow Trail needs revising as part of the VW plan.

[Strange Brew]

If the City has a lower cost of borrowing than the Flames then why shouldn't the benefit of the spread accrue to the City instead of the Flames?

If the City gets in the middle of that transaction, where is the benefit to them? If you are starting a business and need a $1 million to start and you come to me for the money saying " hey the bank will give you a lower rate than me, so why don't you borrow the money and I'll pay you back". Why would I incur the credit risk in that transaction without a benefit?
This seems like a minor issue in the whole scheme of things so I hope no one calls me small minded for asking this question. But to say there is no impact of the City essentially guaranteeing this debt, well that is wrong. In addition to credit risk it could well increase their future costs of borrowing.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

This is why Bow Trail needs revising as part of the VW plan.

Either way bow trail will be south of this new neighbourhood

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bunk

If one lives in the new condos planned by the River and Pumphouse theatre, how does one cross Bow Trail? It's like running across Crowchild or Deerfoot.

Maybe they should put seats on either side of Bow Trail. I'd pay to watch that.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by RM14

Either way bow trail will be south of this new neighbourhood

Is this true? That would be very good.