[News] Bettman urges new arena ASAP

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Bit of a non-starter with the Dome being on Stampede grounds


These issues apply more when the arena is somewhat isolated. The whole idea of a downtown location is the ability for people to access by walking and/or transit. That facilitates more opportunity for sundry development like restaurants.

Downtown development begets downtown residential growth, which begets more development.

I think you still wrestle with the issue of whether the arena is the catalyst for residential/commercial/retail growth in the surrounding area. Given the revitalization argument that is used often today, it largely appears that the growth of commercial, residential, and (outside of some restaurants and bars) retail is better associated with interplay between the three rather than the arena.

A downtown location, once the infrastructure and planning is in place, will grow. Calgary has seen immense growth in the inner city in the past 20 years, and it does not appear to be slowing (recessions, excluded). People want to live/work/play (hey!) in the same areas. So commercial/residential growth provides a demand for retail which creates a demand for commercial/residential and a community can turn into a self-sustaining entity - Especially a downtown community (and one with a large number of corporate HQs)

All the other variables still apply to arenas that Regorium mentioned. The isolation, limited use during the day etc.

So from that perspective, the argument could be made that an arena and stadium smack dab in the middle of a downtown development will not foster new development but either provide little to no catalyst for development (or worse, actually impede development!) If that is the case, then the opportunity cost of 450 million providing little to know area development (on top of the leakage and substitution effects many studies attribute) is less warranted.


Edmonton

I feel the same thing is happening in Edmonton. For decades, Edmonton's DT was atrocious, but it has been slowly changing as more young people are wanting to live downtown. There are several large condo towers that have been popping up all over downtown due to the changing demand and changing demographics (millennials want a different life than their parents). Great restaurants have inevitably followed.

The Oilers jumped at the chance to be involved in developing the area around as a sweetner to the arena deal becuase this is where the money is made. The demand for DT live/work/play in Edmonton is on the rise, and has been before the ICE District ever broke ground.

Columbus

Columbus has been used in the same way as Edmonton to promote DT arena's fostering development. There are studies showing an increase in growth of DT Columbus since the Jackets came around, but the studies also reveal two things: the trend was starting before the arena (increasing with changing demographics) and the growth in downtown Columbus has not been concentrated near the arena district but throughout downtown as a whole.

[GirlySports]

so then the key is the fieldhouse, it has to be used all day everyday to get foot traffic in the complex.

This also means C-Train have to run more during the day, not just rush hour.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I think you still wrestle with the issue of whether the arena is the catalyst for residential/commercial/retail growth in the surrounding area. Given the revitalization argument that is used often today, it largely appears that the growth of commercial, residential, and (outside of some restaurants and bars) retail is better associated with interplay between the three rather than the arena.

A downtown location, once the infrastructure and planning is in place, will grow. Calgary has seen immense growth in the inner city in the past 20 years, and it does not appear to be slowing (recessions, excluded). People want to live/work/play (hey!) in the same areas. So commercial/residential growth provides a demand for retail which creates a demand for commercial/residential and a community can turn into a self-sustaining entity - Especially a downtown community (and one with a large number of corporate HQs)

All the other variables still apply to arenas that Regorium mentioned. The isolation, limited use during the day etc.

So from that perspective, the argument could be made that an arena and stadium smack dab in the middle of a downtown development will not foster new development but either provide little to no catalyst for development (or worse, actually impede development!) If that is the case, then the opportunity cost of 450 million providing little to know area development (on top of the leakage and substitution effects many studies attribute) is less warranted.


Edmonton

I feel the same thing is happening in Edmonton. For decades, Edmonton's DT was atrocious, but it has been slowly changing as more young people are wanting to live downtown. There are several large condo towers that have been popping up all over downtown due to the changing demand and changing demographics (millennials want a different life than their parents). Great restaurants have inevitably followed.

The Oilers jumped at the chance to be involved in developing the area around as a sweetner to the arena deal becuase this is where the money is made. The demand for DT live/work/play in Edmonton is on the rise, and has been before the ICE District ever broke ground.

Columbus

Columbus has been used in the same way as Edmonton to promote DT arena's fostering development. There are studies showing an increase in growth of DT Columbus since the Jackets came around, but the studies also reveal two things: the trend was starting before the arena (increasing with changing demographics) and the growth in downtown Columbus has not been concentrated near the arena district but throughout downtown as a whole.

I think most Edmontonians think that the arena development is/will spark downtown growth.

Your Columbus argument is the same one usually made: no proof that the growth is from the arena. No proof because it is difficult to prove. The bottom line though is that the area is growing successfully.

You would be hard pressed to find a Winnipegger that argued that the arena didn't revitalize the downtown area.

[GioforPM]

The creation of business is a difficult argument - some of the studies say no significant new money is created. People just move their entertainment dollars around - so what's spent in the new district just comes out of others.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The creation of business is a difficult argument - some of the studies say no significant new money is created. People just move their entertainment dollars around - so what's spent in the new district just comes out of others.

All these things are hard to prove.

It's only anecdotal but for me, the thousands I drop annually at, before, and after Flames games would not simply 'move' to other local entertainment.

Far more likely spent on travel.

[Enoch Root]

In other words, suggesting other entertainment options are interchangeable is a stretch. They aren't.

I suppose you could argue that in a larger city, you could simply go to a baseball game or a football game.

But in Calgary, I don't think the argument applies.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In other words, suggesting other entertainment options are interchangeable is a stretch. They aren't.

I suppose you could argue that in a larger city, you could simply go to a baseball game or a football game.

But in Calgary, I don't think the argument applies.

I think he means the business around the stadium/arena.
let me ask you this. How much do you currently spend before and after the flames games at surrounding establishments?

[GioforPM]

[QUOTE=Enoch Root;5582814]All these things are hard to prove.

It's only anecdotal but for me, the thousands I drop annually at, before, and after Flames games would not simply 'move' to other local entertainment.

Far more likely spent on travel.[/QUOTE]

Please feel free to take me to a game.

[Enoch Root]

including tickets

[DJones]

Toronto’s Air Canada Centre was Canada’s busiest arena, with sales of 643,845 tickets — good enough for No. 9 in the world. Montreal’s Bell Centre sold 554,161 tickets — making it No. 18 in the world.

Rexall Place was 44th. Calgary’s Saddledome was 94th with sales of 154,183 tickets.


Sucks that we are that far behind Edmonton

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think most Edmontonians think that the arena development is/will spark downtown growth.

Your Columbus argument is the same one usually made: no proof that the growth is from the arena. No proof because it is difficult to prove. The bottom line though is that the area is growing successfully.

You would be hard pressed to find a Winnipegger that argued that the arena didn't revitalize the downtown area.

As you mention. It's anecdotal. It's your experience which is great bit substitution is a real thing that can be quantified. It happens in cities with any sort of entertainment. I'm glad you can spend more on vacations but most are limited by time off and other factors. Many people will choose to spend the money in town. Maybe more nights out at restaurants, drinking, movies, etc.

Business will also have a ton of more money for their marketing budgets. It's not like they will say well no hockey. I guess we don't market anymore.

And you are somewhat right. While there is no evidence arenas increase economic growth, all the studies in the world probably couldn't provide conclusive enough evidence to convince the pro-growthers that it doesn't help. But, I'm not willing to allow my city to write a blank cheque over anecdotal evidence of some new margaritavilles and normal growth rates.

People won't move to a city because of a new arena. They won't spend more money because of a new arena.

[GirlySports]

I mentioned above i would spend a bit more to try new and fun places. So it not just moving money from place to place. Its money i would have kept under my pillow.

That said. You cant build an entire proposal on that

[Addick]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

so then the key is the fieldhouse, it has to be used all day everyday to get foot traffic in the complex.

Placing a stadium next to an arena also creates a design problem as large blocks are not conducive to neighbourhood vitality. Adding one large block to an urban neighbourhood is difficult, two in close proximity provides more than a challenge.

[GirlySports]

the solution is scooters (and hipsters)

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by DJones

Toronto’s Air Canada Centre was Canada’s busiest arena, with sales of 643,845 tickets — good enough for No. 9 in the world. Montreal’s Bell Centre sold 554,161 tickets — making it No. 18 in the world.

Rexall Place was 44th. Calgary’s Saddledome was 94th with sales of 154,183 tickets.


Sucks that we are that far behind Edmonton

Sorry, what are these numbers? 41 flames games is close to 800,000 tickets sold.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Sorry, what are these numbers? 41 flames games is close to 800,000 tickets sold.

http://edmontonjournal.com/storyline...ng-to-pollstar

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Sorry, what are these numbers? 41 flames games is close to 800,000 tickets sold.

I was wondering if it's concerts only or he was missing 0.

Flames ~1,000,000 last season incld preseason and playoffs.
Hitmen ~350,000 / season
Roughnecks ~70,000/ season
Stampede probably draws around 70,000 - 80,000 concert goers alone.
A bunch of other concerts and events.

The Saddledome should be in around 1.7M tickets per year.


edit, Looked at the article, I guess it is Concerts only, still seems a little low. I thought the Stampede usually had 4-5 concerts with 15 - 20 K. by these numbers that would be half of their concerts tickets for the year.

[GioforPM]

There's 11 concerts at the Dome thru August 2016, if my quick look at the calendar is correct. And that didn't include stuff like the globetrotters or stars on ice.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by DJones

Toronto’s Air Canada Centre was Canada’s busiest arena, with sales of 643,845 tickets — good enough for No. 9 in the world. Montreal’s Bell Centre sold 554,161 tickets — making it No. 18 in the world.

Rexall Place was 44th. Calgary’s Saddledome was 94th with sales of 154,183 tickets.


Sucks that we are that far behind Edmonton

This argument gets used again and again. While I do see the odd major concert, am I the only one who doesn't give a rats @ss if this is one area Edmonton leads us in?

Spend the money on LRT, roads, etc over getting a few more concerts every year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

This argument gets used again and again. While I do see the odd major concert, am I the only one who doesn't give a rats @ss if this is one area Edmonton leads us in?

Spend the money on LRT, roads, etc over getting a few more concerts every year.

It's all about substitution.

Calgarians went to 41% as many concert-seats as Edmontonians did. So what are the implications?

1) Calgarians aren't as interested in concerts and just don't spend as much money on entertainment (that seems very unlikely)
2) Calgarians are substituting other things instead of concerts (the libarary, the zoo?)
3) Calgarians are going elsewhere for concerts, such as Edmonton, Vancouver, Phoenix and Las Vegas.

#3 is both the most likely explanation, and - by a mile - the worst, because if they are going to other cities to see concerts, they aren't just spending their concert money elsewhere, they are also attending bars and restaurants, spending travel dollars, shopping, etc.

And that's the multiplier effect. It's impossible to quantify. But suggesting it doesn't exist is just silly.

I will get roasted for this by a certain segment of the poster-base but pretty much everyone I know does the majority of their 'concerting' in Vegas and Phoenix.

Obviously that's anecdotal. And obviously, that doesn't represent everyone. And of course, people would still do some of that even if we had more top concerts here. But the bottom line is that some of that money would stay in the city, pay taxes here, fill our restaurants, etc.

People can glibly say "I don't care if we are missing concerts" (and I don't go to concerts anymore, personally), but to suggest it doesn't affect he city, and to suggest we aren't losing entertainment revenue, restaurant and bar revenue, and significant local tax revenue, is flat out blind denial.

To the bold: the extra taxes means more city revenue for all those things you want