[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

ask yourself these two questions:

Does the city of Calgary benefit by having the Flames?

Would the city of Calgary be worse off without the Calgary Flames?

If you answer yes to either then maybe they should chip in. Now go ahead and yell at me...

Sorry, but that's such a shallow way of looking at the problem.

1) The Flames financial health does not hinge on public support.

2) Asking for hundreds of millions of dollars is not exactly asking us to "chip in". They are looking for the City to give them prime land for free, remediate that land for free, pay for a large chunk of the project itself, and then leave the city on the hook once they are done with the building. What a generous chip!

3) There is not an endless supply of public money. Supporting the Flames hurts the cause of something else ...something often much more important than hockey.

4) Calgary is better off with the Flames, but it would be better off with a lot of things. An actual Art museum. A Cancer Centre. Shorter hospital waiting times. More hockey rinks. More parks. etc etc.

[Conroy4Mayor]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Just curious how do you figure your specific taxes will go up?

2. CRL - Property taxes on future development in the same area as the arena is being used to pay back this loan.

Sorry Sureloss, but I am frustrated by the narrow perspective you and most other people have on the CRL. If the City doesn't borrow this amount to help build a billion dollar stadium complex, the $200 million in property taxes from the West End (whenever it does get developed) would go into general revenues to help pay for the City's considerable operating expenses. If the West End doesn't ever get developed (unlikely), people will buy homes in other developments where their taxes help share the City's burden.

So yes, our taxes will be higher under this proposal.

You also fail to point out that the City will be stuck with the demolition costs of both the Saddledome and eventually Calgary Next, because the Flames ownership are so generous to allow ownership (and therefore demolition liability) to stay with the City.

The proposal is terrible for Calgary taxpayers. I hope the City challenges Flames ownership to show sime financial class like the Leafs and Canucks when they built their facilities.

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

ask yourself these two questions:

Does the city of Calgary benefit by having the Flames?

Would the city of Calgary be worse off without the Calgary Flames?

If you answer yes to either then maybe they should chip in. Now go ahead and yell at me...

How about we look at the financial aspects of those questions, that is really what matters to the city.
How long would it take for the arena to give back 200mil to the city? Probably a long time.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

ask yourself these two questions:

Does the city of Calgary benefit by having the Flames?

Would the city of Calgary be worse off without the Calgary Flames?

If you answer yes to either then maybe they should chip in. Now go ahead and yell at me...

Replace flames with

Telus Sky
Quarry Park
The Bow
Brookfield place
Any nice restaurant
MEC
Nordstroms
Scotiabank theatre


You get the same answer.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Replace flames with

Telus Sky
Quarry Park
The Bow
Brookfield place
Any nice restaurant
MEC
Nordstroms
Scotiabank theatre


You get the same answer.

Mec Hahahahahah

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The city's balance sheet has an opportunity cost. If it didn't, the city could go on loaning money to build anything and everything it wanted.

I'm other words, the city's credit rating isn't some magical source of free money. Using it to fund a ticket tax and create a CRL takes away from using it for other purposes.

No it's not. But it also doesn't become more expensive in a linear fashion with each project.

They are not anywhere near having an over-burdened credit rating. So unless there are numerous other large projects also competing for the same credit rating guarantee, this isn't a concern, or a net cost.

[Bunk]

The problem here is simple real estate pro-forma arithmatic.

You have a piece of land that has a lot of infrastructure and environmental challenges and cost to do any sort of redevelopment.

You have a financial mechanism, a CRL, that could potentially pay for such costs and could be recouped if the development reaches its full potential (very high density residential and commercial across the site).

The arena/stadium here add two complications: a) it adds $240m to an (already substantial) CRL, and; b) reduces the developable area of the site for taxable uses to pay back the loan.

I feel like someone mentioned this basic issue to the Flames a number of years back, yet here we are...

--

"Edmonton used a downtown revitalization levy to pump $120 million into the Oilers arena, donating city land and related amenities like an LRT connection and “winter garden.”

Nenshi’s office has warned against this kind of move.

“If they proposed West Village, they’d be nuts,” policy analyst Bunk wrote to his colleagues in January 2013. “We told them two years ago the challenge with this site … The business case only makes sense if you can fully build it out at very high density. An arena sucks up a huge (piece) of land, leaving a lot less to pay back a CRL (community revitalization levy).”

In another e-mail, Bunk suggested West Village shouldn’t be opened up for at least a decade, lest it “cannibalize market demand” for East Village."

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...e-flames-arena

I'm guessing by April I could be saying "I told you so"

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The problem here is simple real estate pro-forma arithmatic.

You have a piece of land that has a lot of infrastructure and environmental challenges and cost to do any sort of redevelopment.

You have a financial mechanism, a CRL, that could potentially pay for such costs and could be recouped if the development reaches its full potential (very high density residential and commercial across the site).

The arena/stadium here add two complications: a) it adds $240m to an (already substantial) CRL, and; b) reduces the developable area of the site for taxable uses to pay back the loan.

I feel like someone mentioned this basic issue to the Flames a number of years back, yet here we are...

Which begs the question: how much more quickly would the area develop if the complex were built?

But you can also look at the question in a more critical way, which is: does the project in fact result in the area getting cleaned up and developed, as opposed to sitting idle for the indefinite future, which is currently the case?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Conroy4Mayor

Sorry Sureloss, but I am frustrated by the narrow perspective you and most other people have on the CRL. If the City doesn't borrow this amount to help build a billion dollar stadium complex, the $200 million in property taxes from the West End (whenever it does get developed) would go into general revenues to help pay for the City's considerable operating expenses. If the West End doesn't ever get developed (unlikely), people will buy homes in other developments where their taxes help share the City's burden.

So yes, our taxes will be higher under this proposal.

That assumes the unique opportunity of property next to an arena/stadium and riverfront won't create demand in addition to the current demand for property.

You can't tell me with a straight face that there won't be restaurants/bars/hotels/other businesses that will only exist because of the arena.

And demolition costs? How much are we talking about in present day value for something that will happen 30-40-50 years after the building is complete?

[N-E-B]

I won't complain if they build a new arena. In fact, I'd probably be pretty excited, but I've never once ever thought to myself "I'm not going to the game tonight because the Saddledome sucks". If you know what you're doing, you can get food, beer, and go to the washroom all in one intermission and still have some time left over. It's all about knowing where to go and when. As for the parking, I'm always in and out of there in 5 minutes. Sure I have to walk a bit further to my car but so what? The Saddledome has not once ever ruined my experience at a Flames game because I don't care where the game is. I go, I make the most out of what I have, and I enjoy the game. The notion that the Flames need a new arena is ridiculous. They want a new arena, but they don't need it. Yes I've been to other NHL arenas so I know what we're missing, but I don't think they enhanced my experience to the point where I'll boycott the Saddledome.

[Weitz]

As stated above if you can't get beer food and use the washroom during the intermission you are doing something wrong.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

That assumes the unique opportunity of property next to an arena/stadium and riverfront won't create demand in addition to the current demand for property.

You can't tell me with a straight face that there won't be restaurants/bars/hotels/other businesses that will only exist because of the arena.

Unfortunately the way the site was designed (understanding it's preliminary) these kind of complementary uses would be stunted by virtue of the fact all the traffic from the LRT station is shuttled over a bridge directly into the inside of the facility and the balance of the other development is chopped up and isolated by Bow Trail. No great public gatherings opportunities like LA Live or even Edmonton's Ice District. No one will go way out of their way to go to the bars and reataurants.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The problem here is simple real estate pro-forma arithmatic.

You have a piece of land that has a lot of infrastructure and environmental challenges and cost to do any sort of redevelopment.

You have a financial mechanism, a CRL, that could potentially pay for such costs and could be recouped if the development reaches its full potential (very high density residential and commercial across the site).

The arena/stadium here add two complications: a) it adds $240m to an (already substantial) CRL, and; b) reduces the developable area of the site for taxable uses to pay back the loan.

I feel like someone mentioned this basic issue to the Flames a number of years back, yet here we are...

--

"Edmonton used a downtown revitalization levy to pump $120 million into the Oilers arena, donating city land and related amenities like an LRT connection and “winter garden.”

Nenshi’s office has warned against this kind of move.

“If they proposed West Village, they’d be nuts,” policy analyst Bunk wrote to his colleagues in January 2013. “We told them two years ago the challenge with this site … The business case only makes sense if you can fully build it out at very high density. An arena sucks up a huge (piece) of land, leaving a lot less to pay back a CRL (community revitalization levy).”

In another e-mail, Bunk suggested West Village shouldn’t be opened up for at least a decade, lest it “cannibalize market demand” for East Village."

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...e-flames-arena

I'm guessing by April I could be saying "I told you so"

Thanks for the insight into how this has developed over time. Quick q: in your estimation, what alternate sites would be suitable for a new arena/fieldhouse, putting aside the good, bad, and ugly of CalgaryNEXT for now.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Which begs the question: how much more quickly would the area develop if the complex were built?

But you can also look at the question in a more critical way, which is: does the project in fact result in the area getting cleaned up and developed, as opposed to sitting idle for the indefinite future, which is currently the case?

Personally I think the area stands a better chance without CalgaryNEXT than with it simply by virtue of the fact that the financial case makes more sense. You could probably achieve enough development to pay back the necessary initial outlay of capital.

Less capital and more developable land = more "profitable"
More capital and less developable land = less "profitable"

You might also then be able to realign Bow Trail which would unlock what's actually appealing about this location, which is being riverfront.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Unfortunately the way the site was designed (understanding it's preliminary) these kind of complementart uses would be stunted by virtue of the fact all the traffic from the LRT station is shuttled over a bridge directly into the inside of the facility and the balance of the other development is chopped up and isolated by Bow Trail. No great public gatherings opportunities like LA Live or even Edmonton's Ice District. No one will go way out of their way to go to the bars and reataurants.

It is disappointing that the proposal didn't include a gathering area such as those you mentioned.

However, I think it is also pretty narrow-mined to suggest no one will 'go out of their way to go to the bars'. The majority of people going to the games would be parking somewhere downtown (likely where they already park for work) and walking to the game for some number of blocks. Going to bars and restaurants before and/or after is a desirable and consistent aspect of a downtown location. And every central arena/stadium sees this affect.

Suggesting Calgary wouldn't is hard to accept.

[Scary Eloranta]

Originally Posted by Weitz

As stated above if you can't get beer food and use the washroom during the intermission you are doing something wrong.

Please enlighten me as I've never been able to pull that off in one intermission. You must be leaving the period early?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Personally I think the area stands a better chance without CalgaryNEXT than with it simply by virtue of the fact that the financial case makes more sense. You could probably achieve enough development to pay back the necessary initial outlay of capital.

Less capital and more developable land = more "profitable"
More capital and less developable land = less "profitable"

You might also then be able to realign Bow Trail which would unlock what's actually appealing about this location, which is being riverfront.

And yet the city and province remain at a complete stalemate. Large projects make good catalysts. But let's here the city's proposal to jump start the area in another way.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Thanks for the insight into how this has developed over time. Quick q: in your estimation, what alternate sites would be suitable for a new arena/fieldhouse, putting aside the good, bad, and ugly of CalgaryNEXT for now.

Here's my preferred outcome:

Disaggregate the project

Build a stand alone arena north of the saddledome either on Stampede Park at 12th and Olympic Way or on Remington's lands attached to he SE Green line LRT two blocks north. A few advantages - connection to all LRT lines (City Hall Station being close + Green Line), literally zero other infrastructure costs to support, plenty of parking at Stampede Park, supports East Village further.

Renovate McMahon. I think this could be done for a reasonable cost to make it a good facility for CFL.

Build the Fieldhouse at Foothills as proposed. Better location then West Village and no compromises for what it's supposed to be for.

Develop West Village as a stand alone project as the East Village is nearing full build out.

[sureLoss]

I really wish that the Flames would drop the stadium/fieldhouse component and just build the arena/events center elsewhere.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is disappointing that the proposal didn't include a gathering area such as those you mentioned.

However, I think it is also pretty narrow-mined to suggest no one will 'go out of their way to go to the bars'. The majority of people going to the games would be parking somewhere downtown (likely where they already park for work) and walking to the game for some number of blocks. Going to bars and restaurants before and/or after is a desirable and consistent aspect of a downtown location. And every central arena/stadium sees this affect.

Suggesting Calgary wouldn't is hard to accept.

How dense does this land have to become to replace the missing development that is the massive footprint of an arena to make a CRL feasible?

Complete guess, but what, does the footprint take the place of 2 full size condo buildings plus a small park?

Now, take the East village as an example as an successful CRL experiment. Subtract the CRL value of 2 high rises, subtract arena debt, contentment clean up, and potential traffic realignment - how does the math add up to use CRL?

What did I over simply (as I am sure I did)?