CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And yet the real life examples fly in the face of those opinions.

Look at what is happening around the new arena in Edmonton.

Look at what the arena did for the surrounding area in downtown WPG.

Look at what the new arena is doing in Detroit.

People hate on the location in Glendale Arizona, but compare the area today to what was there prior (in was mostly fields).

Development begets development. WV is a barren eyesore right now. Arguing that the project would do nothing for the area is flat out folly.

The thing is you're just moving money around here. Its a different calculation when you're moving a team into a new city because you are actually creating revenue for business (and even then you're still taking money that would have been spent elsewhere and moving it different businesses). In Calgary's case - you're just moving revenue from places near the Saddledome and to places near CalgaryNext (except for those few events that could be in the new arena that weren't in the old).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The thing is you're just moving money around here. Its a different calculation when you're moving a team into a new city because you are actually creating revenue for business. In Calgary's case - you're just moving revenue from places near the Saddledome and to places near CalgaryNext (except for those few events that could be in the new arena that weren't in the old).

Actually, every one of those examples was a city that already had an arena and this was just 'moving money around'.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

That's still one of my biggest question marks in terms of how well the fieldhouse would actually work in that location.

Field house accessibility is an obvious priority for me and I would love something that is centrally located. That being said, I really don't like the idea of it being downtown because of potential parking rates. I hate the idea of potentially having to pay $10 or $15 for parking in order to take my kid to practice/training/an event. If I had to pay $2 or $3 for parking and the money was actually funding the facility it wouldn't be too bad but if I'm paying a larger amount and the funds are lining the pockets of the Flames ownership group I wouldn't be too impressed.

In my opinion, the Stampede and Calgary Sports Entertainment need to hash out an agreement that benefits both organizations in an equitable fashion and come together to develop a sports and entertainment district on the Stampede lands. It is the ideal location and the ideal situation. It doesn't make sense to have the Stampede developing their own project/district and the CSE developing a competing district.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Cappy

King notes in his video that the "synergies" are created by not building the arena, fieldhouse, and event centre as opposed to building all three.

The 300 million figure is very misleading.

If the arena is the event centre, why wouldnt it be the same if the arena was built separately.

Arena = event centre, per this page. Not sure why they are referring to it as that, but they are. He must've misspoke in the video.

[KevanGuy]

^ Ken was pretty careful in his initial presentation not to use the term "arena" (or Calgary Flames for that matter), he used "event centre". I'd guess that was done to minimize public focus on this being a project for rich players and owners.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What does 'not needed' even mean? Developing WV would be great for the city.

It means that there is ample vacant/underutilized land for redevelopment of this nature all across the downtown (East Village, Beltline, Downtown West, Eau Claire) before spending hundreds of millions to facilitate development in the West Village also. There is only a certain amount of demand for urban residential and commercial. Opening this area spreads a fairly finite amount of demand thinner. It would mean other areas, including East Village, would build out less quickly.

In time, the West Village should open up. But, in my view, not until other areas are more substantially built up in and around the downtown.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bunk

It means that there is ample vacant/underutilized land for redevelopment of this nature all across the downtown (East Village, Beltline, Downtown West, Eau Claire) before spending hundreds of millions to facilitate development in the West Village also. There is only a certain amount of demand for urban residential and commercial. Opening this area spreads a fairly finite amount of demand thinner. It would mean other areas, including East Village, would build out less quickly.

In time, the West Village should open up. But, in my view, not until other areas are more substantially built up in and around the downtown.

Yeah you have stated similar before.

This sounds a lot like the city talking it's position to me.

There is a desire - and in fact a goal - of the city to have a more dense footprint (have more people living centrally). And, not surprisingly, there is no resistance to residential developments throughout the downtown and beltline.

However, the city is now making this argument that there is no need for development in WV.

It is presented as avoiding cannibalization of EV. Yet other development is not discouraged in the same way.

All just politic-ing, it looks like to me.

[nik-]

But it's "politicing" to ensure that a financial investment from a tax base isn't undercut by accelerating development in another area of downtown to accommodate a sports team.

It's rational.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Bunk

It means that there is ample vacant/underutilized land for redevelopment of this nature all across the downtown (East Village, Beltline, Downtown West, Eau Claire) before spending hundreds of millions to facilitate development in the West Village also. There is only a certain amount of demand for urban residential and commercial. Opening this area spreads a fairly finite amount of demand thinner. It would mean other areas, including East Village, would build out less quickly.

In time, the West Village should open up. But, in my view, not until other areas are more substantially built up in and around the downtown.

This seems to be the position of you and the mayor, however it is incongruent with the rationale to develop the East Village, which enjoys the support of the mayor's office. Why is it okay to subsidize private developers in the East Village, drawing unsubsidized development activity away from the Beltline, Kensington, Bridges, etc., but not for the West Village?

[Reneeee]

Originally Posted by Zarley

This seems to be the position of you and the mayor, however it is incongruent with the rationale to develop the East Village, which enjoys the support of the mayor's office. Why is it okay to subsidize private developers in the East Village, drawing unsubsidized development activity away from the Beltline, Kensington, Bridges, etc., but not for the West Village?

This... Can anybody explain the rationale that East Village was the spot to develop aside from it being close to city Hall.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

developers lining politicians' pockets?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

This... Can anybody explain the rationale that East Village was the spot to develop aside from it being close to city Hall.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Trains? Easier access? No massive infrastructure redevelopment (roads)? No contamination clean up?

I don't actually know but that would be my guesses

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

This... Can anybody explain the rationale that East Village was the spot to develop aside from it being close to city Hall.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

First, it was a ####ing blight. Second, it didn't have the massive unknown of cleanup costs.

[CroFlames]

I like Ken's new video from today. I might be slowing coming around on this.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

First, it was a ####ing blight. Second, it didn't have the massive unknown of cleanup costs.

1) WV is also a blight (and should be one of the most beautiful areas in the city).

2) the cleanup costs have to happen. Ignoring and delaying them (which have been the city's strategy) have made them substantially greater. They will never be dealt with (and will continue to worsen) without some sort of catalyst.

[nik-]

Yeah, they have to happen, but they don't have to happen now, and they didn't have to happen first. Maybe if WV had a bunch of crack houses, it would have gone first.

As such, EV went first and it's still not filled out, so why would the city pay to possibly negatively affect the development.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, they have to happen, but they don't have to happen now, and they didn't have to happen first.

As such, EV went first and it's still not filled out, so why would the city pay to possibly negatively affect the development.

Because Nenshi hates waiting in line for pocket dogs, damnit!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, they have to happen, but they don't have to happen now, and they didn't have to happen first. Maybe if WV had a bunch of crack houses, it would have gone first.

As such, EV went first and it's still not filled out, so why would the city pay to possibly negatively affect the development.

Based on the fact that the problem continues to worsen, and is now seeping across to the other side of the river, and thus the cost of cleanup is escalating much faster than the rate of inflation, I would argue that it most definitely should have gone first.

[nik-]

But it didn't, so we are where we are. If the acceleration of cleanup should happen, it should be because there's danger, not because Ken King made a youtube video so the Flames can maximize their revenue in the guise of helping the city.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Based on the fact that the problem continues to worsen, and is now seeping across to the other side of the river, and thus the cost of cleanup is escalating much faster than the rate of inflation, I would argue that it most definitely should have gone first.

Dude, do you ever read the page?

This has been discussed. The seepage was from the 80's which was contained by the building of the cement containment.